Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Free Book Now Available -- Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed  (Read 32535 times)

Offline Tom Scully

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1216
Advertisement
.....
And we should pause to note that even the “we can see the emperor’s new clothes” Warren Commission doubted the authenticity of the palmprint and therefore asked Lt. Day to sign a separate affidavit about his lifting and processing of the print, and that Lt. Day refused to do so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And :

.....

...........
« Last Edit: July 05, 2020, 10:37:08 AM by Tom Scully »

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Tom Scully

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1216
Yeah, zero evidence except for the bag with his prints on it being found in the sniper's nest and the fact that he was seen carrying a long package to work that morning. Oh yeah, and those fibers in the bag that matched with fibers of the blanket that he kept his rifle wrapped in.

Couple of questions, Tim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

« Last Edit: July 05, 2020, 11:03:36 AM by Tom Scully »

Offline Tom Scully

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1216
Nope, sorry Tim but you are completely wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0191a.htm
« Last Edit: July 05, 2020, 11:37:52 AM by Tom Scully »

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Tom Scully

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1216
.....

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



minor details -- LOL

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

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

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

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

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



« Last Edit: July 05, 2020, 11:53:35 AM by Tom Scully »

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
I did a little more digging into the matter of the HSCA’s access to the rifle palmprint lift. After doing so, I am not convinced that Scalice actually examined the lift itself.

I located the 7/7/1978 Klein-Moriarty HSCA memo, released in 2017, regarding the FBI’s inability to find the original Oswald’s prints for the HSCA. The memo is clearly and indisputably referring to all Oswald prints, not just his fingerprints. The memo uses “prints,” “fingerprints,” and “lifts” interchangeably, even when referring to the palmprint found on one of the boxes (“cardboard carton”) from the sixth-floor window and even when referring to Commission Exhibits 627 through 660, which included the rifle palmprint lift.

In one statement, the memo says “inquire about lifts re rifle, carton, and bag.” One of the prints from the carton was a palmprint, but the memo simply calls it and the others “lifts.” More revealingly, and conclusively, Moriarty added a note to his memo on 7/18/1978 that a Mr. Johnson from the FBI advised him that the FBI had none of the original lifts for Commission Exhibits 627 through 660: “no original lifts, have copies (C.E. 627 thru 660).” The rifle palmprint is CE 637, 638, and 639.

So according to this memo, the FBI told the HSCA that it could not find the original lifts for all prints identified by the Warren Commission as exhibits 627 through 660, which include the rifle palmprint lift. Here is the memo:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32262580.pdf

Two interesting side points about the memo before we get to Scalice’s statement about examining the palmprint lift, and these are points I have not seen discussed elsewhere:

* The memo mentions that Paine, the chief of the FBI’s latent prints office, said that the only way they could trace what had happened to the misplaced print evidence would be to examine “the original worksheet that the print section had to make up as it received the material initially,” but Paine said they were unable to find the worksheet either. 

* The memo mentions that Moriarty was getting “flack” from the FBI on this issue (“FBI flack”) but that Moriarty intended to continue “despite Bureau’s criticism.” Now, gee, why would the FBI be criticizing Moriarty, and giving him flack, for trying to obtain the original lifts for the HSCA?

Okay, so what are we to make of Scalice’s claim that he examined the palmprint lift itself in June when Moriarty stated in a July 18 postscript in his memo that the FBI had advised him that they could not find the original lifts for CEs 627 through 660, which included the rifle palmprint lift? Did Scalice really examine it? Or did he just look at photos and negatives of it? Based on the Klein-Moriarty memo, and based on Scalice’s report, I am inclined to think that Scalice did not examine the palmprint lift itself. Just for context and background, let us revisit the relevant section from Scalice’s HSCA report, where Scalice lists the items he examined and what he found:

Quote
(158) 9. Lift from rifle (designated commission exhibit 139) from the underside of the foregrip at the gun barrel end of the foregrip of a Mannlicher-Carcano, serial no. C2766. I identified five characteristics or points of identity which match the lift.

(159) 10. Latent palm print lifted from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip, developed by the Dallas Police Department. I examined enlarged negatives which I identified as being identical to the right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald. (8 HSCA 248)

In addition to the fact that Scalice said he examined an original lift that the FBI told Moriarty they could not find, a few questions come to mind:

1. Why is the palmprint lift not listed in the HSCA exhibits? If Scalice examined it, why is it not included in the HSCA exhibits? (If I am wrong and it is included, please correct me. I have checked three lists of the HSCA exhibits—the palmprint lift does not appear on any them.)

2. Why did Scalice not provide an exhibit number or numeric designation for the palmprint lift but provided this information for every other item that he examined?

3. Why was Scalice able to find only 5 matching characteristics on the palmprint lift itself, assuming he really examined it, but was able to find at least double that amount on the enlarged negatives of the lift? Notice that Scalice did not say that he identified the lift itself as matching Oswald’s palmprint—he only said this about the enlarged negatives of the lift.

Since the minimum number of points of identity required for a credible identification is 10 or 12, Scalice’s implication is that the negatives of the lift provided at least twice the number of matching characteristics than did the lift itself. We are left to infer this, because Scalice only implied it, and he did not testify and thus was never asked about the number of points of identity he allegedly found. 

4. Why did Scalice not testify? He simply submitted a report. Given the controversy and questions about the rifle palmprint, one would think that the committee would have wanted Scalice to testify to address those questions.

5. Why does the HSCA’s final report say nothing about any examination of the palmprint lift except the one done for the Warren Commission? This is a very curious omission. (The palmprint lift is not included in the final report’s list of exhibits either.)



JFK Assassination Forum


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
So according to this memo, the FBI told the HSCA that it could not find the original lifts for all prints identified by the Warren Commission as exhibits 627 through 660, which include the rifle palmprint lift.

Interesting. So what did John Hunt scan in the National Archives, the original magic partial palmprint lift or just a copy?

Maybe Pat Speer would know.

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
I did a little more digging into the matter of the HSCA’s access to the rifle palmprint lift. After doing so, I am not convinced that Scalice actually examined the lift itself.

I located the 7/7/1978 Klein-Moriarty HSCA memo, released in 2017, regarding the FBI’s inability to find the original Oswald’s prints for the HSCA. The memo is clearly and indisputably referring to all Oswald prints, not just his fingerprints. The memo uses “prints,” “fingerprints,” and “lifts” interchangeably, even when referring to the palmprint found on one of the boxes (“cardboard carton”) from the sixth-floor window and even when referring to Commission Exhibits 627 through 660, which included the rifle palmprint lift.

In one statement, the memo says “inquire about lifts re rifle, carton, and bag.” One of the prints from the carton was a palmprint, but the memo simply calls it and the others “lifts.” More revealingly, and conclusively, Moriarty added a note to his memo on 7/18/1978 that a Mr. Johnson from the FBI advised him that the FBI had none of the original lifts for Commission Exhibits 627 through 660: “no original lifts, have copies (C.E. 627 thru 660).” The rifle palmprint is CE 637, 638, and 639.

So according to this memo, the FBI told the HSCA that it could not find the original lifts for all prints identified by the Warren Commission as exhibits 627 through 660, which include the rifle palmprint lift. Here is the memo:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32262580.pdf

Two interesting side points about the memo before we get to Scalice’s statement about examining the palmprint lift, and these are points I have not seen discussed elsewhere:

* The memo mentions that Paine, the chief of the FBI’s latent prints office, said that the only way they could trace what had happened to the misplaced print evidence would be to examine “the original worksheet that the print section had to make up as it received the material initially,” but Paine said they were unable to find the worksheet either. 

* The memo mentions that Moriarty was getting “flack” from the FBI on this issue (“FBI flack”) but that Moriarty intended to continue “despite Bureau’s criticism.” Now, gee, why would the FBI be criticizing Moriarty, and giving him flack, for trying to obtain the original lifts for the HSCA?

Okay, so what are we to make of Scalice’s claim that he examined the palmprint lift itself in June when Moriarty stated in a July 18 postscript in his memo that the FBI had advised him that they could not find the original lifts for CEs 627 through 660, which included the rifle palmprint lift? Did Scalice really examine it? Or did he just look at photos and negatives of it? Based on the Klein-Moriarty memo, and based on Scalice’s report, I am inclined to think that Scalice did not examine the palmprint lift itself. Just for context and background, let us revisit the relevant section from Scalice’s HSCA report, where Scalice lists the items he examined and what he found:

In addition to the fact that Scalice said he examined an original lift that the FBI told Moriarty they could not find, a few questions come to mind:

1. Why is the palmprint lift not listed in the HSCA exhibits? If Scalice examined it, why is it not included in the HSCA exhibits? (If I am wrong and it is included, please correct me. I have checked three lists of the HSCA exhibits—the palmprint lift does not appear on any them.)

2. Why did Scalice not provide an exhibit number or numeric designation for the palmprint lift but provided this information for every other item that he examined?

There's no mention in that memo of Scalise having already examined a number of those items at the Latent Print Section of the FBI. Were none of them aware of it?

Some of the items that he examined were definitely photographs. The prints on the paper bag, for example. So it is possible, and even likely, that he never had the actual lift at his disposal. However, he specified that he used enlarged negatives of the palm print, which would be of the lift itself. While using secondhand photos of prints can be problematic when it comes to making positive identification, the use of photos taken by identification experts themselves is/was common.  Scalise was obviously comfortable enough with the quality of the negatives to make his determinations. It's similar to Cadigan using an enlarged photo of the money order to aid in his own identification of the handwriting on it. In fact, Latona himself used enlarged photographs to aid in his identification of prints.  Latona had photos of the prints prepared under his personal direction. The negatives that Scalise refers to would have been of the photos of the lift prepared for Latona.

Quote
3. Why was Scalice able to find only 5 matching characteristics on the palmprint lift itself, assuming he really examined it, but was able to find at least double that amount on the enlarged negatives of the lift? Notice that Scalice did not say that he identified the lift itself as matching Oswald’s palmprint—he only said this about the enlarged negatives of the lift.

Since the minimum number of points of identity required for a credible identification is 10 or 12, Scalice’s implication is that the negatives of the lift provided at least twice the number of matching characteristics than did the lift itself. We are left to infer this, because Scalice only implied it, and he did not testify and thus was never asked about the number of points of identity he allegedly found. 

You are still confusing Scalise's identification of the palm print with his matching of the lift to the barrel of the rifle. They are two separate things. Two separate identifications.

Quote
4. Why did Scalice not testify? He simply submitted a report. Given the controversy and questions about the rifle palmprint, one would think that the committee would have wanted Scalice to testify to address those questions.

Not sure why the HSCA wasn't interested in having Scalise testify.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 01:16:39 AM by Tim Nickerson »

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
A few points in reply to various comments about the backyard rifle photos:

* Any discussion of the backyard rifle photos has to start with the fact that in 1992 we discovered prints that were used in the fabrication process. Before lone-gunman theorists can expect us to address all of their labored, convoluted attempts to explain the indications of tampering in the photos, they need to first and foremost face the fact that the DPD prints released in 1992 show a part of the fabrication process that was used to create the photos.

* The DPD prints released in 1992 are especially revealing and crucial because one of them shows a DPD detective striking a pose that was not officially known to exist among the backyard rifle photos until 1976 when Geneva Dees gave a new backyard rifle photo to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Mrs. Dees explained that she found the photo among the belongings of her late husband, former Dallas policeman Roscoe White. The photo is designated as 133-C-Dees. It shows the Oswald figure in a pose that is different from the poses in 133-A and 133-B. So, gee, what was going on with a DPD detective being photographed in Oswald’s backyard and striking a pose that no could have known about at the time, if the DPD’s story about “finding” the photos in Ruth Paine’s garage were true?

* John Mytton does not seem to understand the issue of the virtual sameness of backgrounds. He seems to be mistakenly assuming that the term “virtual sameness of backgrounds” refers to the amount of background visible in each photo and/or the position of the Oswald figure in relation to the background in each picture. It does not. The amount of background seen in the three photos differs. We are talking about the distances between objects in the backgrounds, not the amount of background seen in each photo.

When a camera moves between exposures during the taking of photos of the same scene, this will cause the distances between background objects in the scene to change, because the camera’s horizontal and vertical position relative to the background changed and because the camera’s distance from the target changed.

If the backyard rifle photos were taken in the manner alleged, i.e., taken with a cheap handheld camera that was passed back and forth between exposures, there would be substantial differences in the distances between background objects from photo to photo.

* Numerous photographic experts have noted that the backgrounds in the backyard rifle photos seem virtually identical, that the differences in the distances between objects are extremely small, and that this is a clear indication that the same background was keystoned and used for all the photos.

* The HSCA photographic evidence panel (PEP) was aware of this problem and sought to explain it. The PEP declared that it had found “measurable” differences in the distances between the background objects. But when you check the PEP’s report, you discover that these differences were incredibly small. PEP member Calvin McCamy acknowledged this in his testimony, although he did not fully explain just how small the differences were. He said that the measurements indicated the camera “moved slightly” between exposures, that the horizontal measurements showed “a small change” in the camera’s horizontal position between exposures, and that the vertical measurements showed a “very small” vertical movement of the camera between exposures. 

* Just how small was “small,” “very small,” and “slight”? Incredibly small. The PEP did parallax horizontal and vertical measurements on selected objects in the backgrounds. Parallax measurements are photogrammetric measurements performed to detect the slightest variations in distances between objects in photos.

The horizontal parallax measurements were done on points on the fence at three levels on 133-A and 133-B. There was an “a” measurement and a “b” measurement, each done at three levels. Here are the differences—in millimeters; yes, millimeters:

a-lower: 0.8 mm
a-middle: 0.1 mm
a-upper: 1.1 mm

b-lower: 0.5 mm
b-middle: 0.7 mm
b-upper: 0.1 mm

The largest difference was 1.1 mm, which equals 0.043 inches. If fractions are easier to grasp, 0.043 inches as a fraction is 11/256ths of an inch. By comparison, 1/16th of inch is 1.59 mm. So 1.1 mm is 30% smaller than 1/16th of an inch. And, again, that was the largest difference.

The vertical parallax measurements were done on two objects on the fence. To account for differences in magnification, the measurements were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next, and the scaling distance was measured on the two center pickets of the four pickets on the fence. The differences:

Gate bolt to screen: 1.7 mm
Scaling distance: 0.3 mm
Gate bolt to screen adjusted for scaling distance: 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B)

If it helps any, here are the measurements as written in the PEP report:

133A: gate bolt to screen =30.4 mm. scaling; dist.=15.5 mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B: gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm, scaling dist.=15 .2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11

You do not have to be a scientist or a mathematician to understand that these are very, very tiny differences. Just try to imagine the odds of the camera ending up in virtually the same horizontal, vertical, and distance position in relation to the target, to within a tiny fraction of an inch each time, after being handed back and forth between each exposure.

Mr. Mee, the NSA photographic expert whom I interviewed, was particularly struck by these amazingly tiny differences in background object distances. He said “no way” the variations would be so small if these photos were taken in the manner alleged. I quote from the transcript of my interview with him:

Quote
MTG.  Okay. Now, I'd like to ask you about the fact
that the panel found only very small variations in the
distances between objects in the background of the pictures.
Given the way that these photos were supposedly taken, does
that seem possible?

MR. MEE.  No, the variations would be greater if these
photographs were taken the way Marina said they were.  I mean,
like they showed in the video: She snaps a picture; Oswald walks
over and takes the camera from her; he advances the film; he
hands the camera back to her; he goes back over and assumes
another pose; she aims with the camera again and then takes the
picture; and they go through this process again for the third
photo.  No.  No way.  The camera would have moved more than
just a tiny fraction of an inch.

Even with a professional photographer who's trying to hold the
camera as still as possible, you're going to have more variations
in distance than what they're talking about in these pictures.
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf)


« Last Edit: July 07, 2020, 02:56:54 AM by Michael T. Griffith »