Enough is enough.
It's one thing dealing with someone who comes across as a very unintelligent child, it's another dealing with a downright liar.
I cannot believe you have posted this lie yet again:
"Your two prints on the barrel claim have gone away, replaced by a print on the trigger housing, which is what Lt Day stated."
In my last two posts I have made it absolutely clear that the second print that Day mentioned WAS NOT on the trigger housing.
It is clear you are just going to repeat this meaningless lie over and over again no matter what I post.
In any debate, lying is the lowest tactic that can be used. It is the strategy of a genuine loser.
"The only person who thinks he did not disassemble the rifle is you."
This is another lie.
Stombaugh DID NOT disassemble the Carcano. Do not continue with this lie.
In his WC testimony, Latona explains that the rifle was disassembled by a weapons expert. You would know this if you had any clue about the basics of this case.
But you don't.
So you don't.
It was only when the rifle was disassembled that the part of the barrel covered by the wood was revealed and it was Latona who examined it. He reported there were no prints on this part of the rifle and no sign that it had even been processed for prints. That is to say there was no fingerprint powder on this part of the rifle. The barrel was clean.
Where did the prints and the powder go?
They were either never there or Day wiped the barrel clean.
"Oh, the FBI did authenticate the palm print as having been come from the carcano."
I know they did.
I was correcting another one of your lies.
You posted that the FBI authenticated the palmprint ON the Carcano.
THE PALMPRINT WAS NOT ON THE CARCANO WHEN THE FBI AUTHENTICATED IT.
This is a lie!
This is what I posted in response to your lie:
"Firstly, the FBI DID NOT authenticate the palmprint on the Carcano.
There was no palmprint on the Carcano when the FBI received it.
You should know this basic fact.
The FBI authenticated that the palmprint allegedly lifted by Day was taken from the Mannlicher Carcano. As has been explained to you over and over again, this DOES NOT mean the palmprint was on the rifle when Day first examined it."
No doubt you will carry on with these lies but I will just refer you back to this post.
Like all Nutters, you resort to outright lies when confronted with evidence/testimony that undermines your belief system.
Like all Nutters, you are a zealot.
It is very interesting that there are no reasonable Nutters on this forum and there never has been. Every single one reverts to spouting utter nonsense or lies rather than engage in a genuine debate about the numerous troubling aspects of this case.
You claim to be well read but apparently you go blind when you see something you do not like. Latona clearly states the print was on the trigger guard. Again, not the barrel like you repeatedly claimed but the trigger guard.
Mr. LATONA. Well, the technique that I used first was simply to examine it visually under a magnifying glass, a hand magnifying glass, primarily for the purpose of seeing, first of all, whether there were any visible prints. I might point out that my attention had been directed to the area which we refer to as the trigger guard on the left side of the weapon, Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. The trigger-guard area?
Mr. LATONA. The trigger-guard area. Mr. EISENBERG. Which actually, in the case of this particular weapon, is the area in which the magazine is inserted at the 'top; is that correct? You are looking at the weapon now, and the magazine comes out the bottom of what is
called the trigger-guard area, which would be a trigger guard on another weapon Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you received it with the cellophane cover, what portion did it cover?
Mr. LATONA.
Closest to the trigger area. Mr. EISENBERG.
On the trigger guard, closest to the trigger area?
Mr. LATONA. That's right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was that on the right or left side of the weapon?
Mr. LATONA. Left side. [/b]
Mr. EISENBERG. And was there a print visible to you underneath the cellophane?
Mr. LATONA. I could see faintly ridge formations there. However, examination disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value. Now, I did not stop there.
----------------------
DM---”In his WC testimony, Latona explains that the rifle was disassembled by a weapons expert. You would know this if you had any clue about the basics of this case.”
What I know is you make things up. Here I will quote it for you, even something as simple as this is now messed up.:
Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon. I also had one of the
firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.
Not an “expert”, an “examiner”---- You know an assistant. Stombaugh most likely had one too.
It is not firearms expert it is firearms examiner. Why would the same examiner not be available for Mr Stombaugh? Do you think they just ship the parts and pieces around willy nilly and hope things do not get misplaced?
---------------------------
You should refer to something in an attempt to understand the testimony. I would not think your misguided posts would be a good choice.
So two or maybe three different people handled the firearm after Lt Day and before Mr Latona. Mr Stombaugh mentions all the fingerprint powder. The Firearms examiner is not questioned. From this you accuse Lt Day of fabricating evidence?