Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Free Book Now Available -- Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed  (Read 2344 times)

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1822
None of my arguments and observations are refuted in that thread, not one of them. In fact, the thread fails to address several of my points.

Try reading the tread. Your chin argument is addressed on the first page.

Quote
Because your information does not explain the problems that I and others have pointed out with the alleged palmprint. Simply brushing aside as "mistakes" all the evidence that indicates the palmprint was not on the rifle when the FBI got it does not do much for me.

If Oswald had been given a fair trial with an honest judge, the palmprint would have been excluded for lack of a credible chain of evidence. Indeed, if the prosecution knew that the judge would be honest, they might not have even entered the palmprint into evidence given the fact that it disappeared from the rifle barrel when the rifle was turned over to the FBI on the night of 11/22 (Latona said the rifle barrel did not look like it had even been processed for prints). It was only after federal agents paid a visit to the funeral home and took prints from Oswald's corpse that the DPD magically discovered that, "Oh, yeah, did we mention we found a palmprint on the barrel?"

You are still avoiding addressing the information that I posted.  Here it is again:





For the record, there was a credible chain of evidence for the print.

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2638
Try reading the tread. Your chin argument is addressed on the first page.


 Thumb1:



JohnM

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
    • Plaza 3D

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1822


Which Oswald is that, Harvey or Lee?   ;D

I've never seen that pic before.

Online Michael T. Griffith

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
    • JFK Assassination Web Page
Try reading the tread. Your chin argument is addressed on the first page.

You still have not read the chapter on the backyard photos, have you?  Did you miss the part about the discovery of DPD backyard rifle photos in 1992, one of which shows a white silhouette where Oswald's body was later pasted, and another of which shows a DPD detective striking the same pose seen in the third photo? Did you miss that? Now, gosh gully gulp, can you tell me why the DPD would have taken and manipulated such pictures?

Even the Houston Post (February 9, 1992) acknowledged that "One photo of Oswald's backyard in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas shows clear evidence of darkroom manipulation" and that this manipulation involved "attempts to frame Oswald by 'inserting' him into the background" of the picture. Did you miss all that? You and your fellow true believers are about 30 years behind the information curve.

Anyway, regrading the chin issue, anyone with eyes who is willing to use them can look at those photos and see that the chin is noticeably different from Oswald's chin in genuine photos of him. British photographic expert Malcolm Thompson rejected the HSCA photographic panel's labored attempt to deny the chin problem.

You are still avoiding addressing the information that I posted. Here it is again: [SNIP]

SMH. That well-known and misused memo proves nothing, and in fact only raises more questions.

For the record, there was a credible chain of evidence for the print.

Not on this planet. You must be kidding. Lt. Day "failed" to take a single photograph of the print, even though he took several photos of the partial prints on the trigger guard. When the DPD handed over all the physical evidence on the night of 11/22, Lt. Day said nothing about having found a palmprint on the barrel (which print, by the way, was allegedly "found" beneath the foregrip, i.e., on a part of the barrel that a gunman could not have touched while firing the rifle). When Latona got the rifle at FBI HQ, he found no trace of a print on the barrel, even though Lt. Day later claimed that the print was still visible after he did his lift. Moreover, Latona said he found no trace of any attempt to even process the barrel for prints; in other words, he could see no evidence that anyone had tried to detect/lift a print on/from the barrel.

And you realize that the palmprint did not arrive to the FBI until November 29, right? You know that, right? Why the seven-day delay in sending the most crucial piece of evidence that the DPD supposedly found, whereas all the prints were sent, and arrived, before then? Hey? What was the holdup? And why didn't the DPD rush to announce the finding of the palmprint as soon as it was found? Why the long delay?

This is your idea of a "credible chain of evidence"?





« Last Edit: July 01, 2020, 06:43:46 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1822
You still have not read the chapter on the backyard photos, have you?  Did you miss the part about the discovery of DPD backyard rifle photos in 1992, one of which shows a white silhouette where Oswald's body was later pasted, and another of which shows a DPD detective striking the same pose seen in the third photo? Did you miss that? Now, gosh gully gulp, can you tell me why the DPD would have taken and manipulated such pictures?

Even the Houston Post (February 9, 1992) that "One photo of Oswald's backyard in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas shows clear evidence of darkroom manipulation" and that this manipulation involved "attempts to frame Oswald by 'inserting' him into the background" of the picture. Did you miss all that? You and your fellow true believers are about 30 years behind the information curve.

What does the white silhouette have to do with the authenticity of the Backyard photos themselves?

Quote
Anyway, regrading the chin issue, anyone with eyes who is willing to use them can look at those photos and see that the chin is noticeably different from Oswald's chin in genuine photos of him. British photographic expert Malcolm Thompson rejected the HSCA photographic panel's labored attempt to deny the chin problem.

Sorry but John Mytton has destroyed your chin argument and he did so with little effort.

Malcolm Thompson never had the actual photos and negative(s) at his disposal. He ended up deferring to the conclusions of the HSCA panel of photographic analysis experts.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0092a.htm

Quote
SMH. That well-known and misused memo proves nothing, and in fact only raises more questions.

The FBI memo establishes that the palm print had been lifted off the barrel of Oswald's rifle. And yes, it raises questions. Ones that you are unwilling or unable to address. Like, how did Oswald's palm print get on the barrel if he had never had possession of the rifle?

Quote
Not on this planet. You must be kidding. Lt. Day "failed" to take a single photograph of the print, even though he took several photos of the partial prints on the trigger guard. When the DPD handed over all the physical evidence on the night of 11/22, Lt. Day said nothing about having found a palmprint on the barrel (which print, by the way, was allegedly "found" beneath the foregrip, i.e., on a part of the barrel that a gunman could not have touched while firing the rifle). When Latona got the rifle at FBI HQ, he found no trace of a print on the barrel, even though Lt. Day later claimed that the print was still visible after he did his lift. Moreover, Latona said he found no trace of any attempt to even process the barrel for prints; in other words, he could see no evidence that anyone had tried to detect/lift a print on/from the barrel.

And you realize that the palmprint did not arrive to the FBI until November 29, right? You know that, right? Why the seven-day delay in sending the most crucial piece of evidence that the DPD supposedly found, whereas all the prints were send, and arrived, before then? Hey? What was the holdup? And why didn't the DPD rush to announce the finding of the palmprint as soon as it was found? Why the long delay?

This is your idea of a "credible chain of evidence"?

A photo is not required for a chain of evidence. Latona found no trace of a print on the barrel on Nov 23 because Carl Day had removed all traces of it. Day thought later that he had left some traces of it but he was wrong.

The FBI received the palm print on Nov 26, not Nov 29 as you claim. The chain of custody was from Day to Drain to Latona.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7962
The FBI memo establishes that the palm print had been lifted off the barrel of Oswald's rifle.

“Oswald’s rifle”. LOL.

The FBI memo doesn’t “establish” anything. It’s just a claim.

Quote
The FBI received the palm print on Nov 26, not Nov 29 as you claim. The chain of custody was from Day to Drain to Latona.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that you personally, Mr. Latona, did not know anything about a print being on the rifle which was identifiable until you received, actually received the lift, Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. On the 29th of November.
Mr. EISENBERG. Seven days after the assassination. And in the intervening period, correspondingly, the FBI had no such knowledge?
Mr. LATONA. As far as I know.

Cite Drain having it on the 26th. And a better question is, why didn’t Drain get it on the 22nd?

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1822

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2638
The FBI memo doesn’t “establish” anything. It’s just a claim.

The palmprint that Day took on the 22nd.



The print that the FBI took directly from Oswald's rifle.



The random marks from Days print is a perfect match to the prints take from Oswald's rifle by the FBI.



JohnM


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1822
The palmprint that Day took on the 22nd.



The print that the FBI took directly from Oswald's rifle.



The random marks from Days print is a perfect match to the prints take from Oswald's rifle by the FBI.



JohnM


   

 

Mobile View