Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
Mitch Todd, Steve Howsley

Author Topic: The Palmprint  (Read 1456 times)

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3136
Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2024, 01:25:08 PM »
Advertisement
"...Rankin advised because of the circumstances that now exist there was a serious question in the minds of the Commission as to whether or not the palm impression that has been obtained from the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent palm impression removed from the barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source..."


There are two issues here:
1] The Commission questioned the legitimacy of the palmprint. The reason it questioned the legitimacy was due to "circumstances that now exist". What were these "circumstances" that raised a "serious question in the minds of the Commission" about the authenticity of the print.
2] This doubt led to a simple question - did the palmprint come from the barrel of the rifle or not?

On one hand we have the issues that led to the Commission questioning the authenticity of the print, on the other we have the Commission wanting to know if the print came from the rifle or not.
The letter from Hoover (CE 2637) only answers the second point - whether or not the print came from the rifle or not.
IT DOES NOT shed any light on any of the issues that led to the Commission questioning the authenticity of the print in the first place.
All these questions remained unanswered and disappeared in the minds of the Commission once they were satisfied the print came from the rifle.



JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2024, 01:25:08 PM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3727
Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2024, 01:43:40 PM »
According to Howard Willens in his book “History Will Prove Us Right” page 267:

Our effort to document critical facts in Chapter 4 prompted new investigative requests in July and August. While exploring a possible escape route for Oswald, we asked the Secret Service to provide additional information on city bus routes in Dallas and Greyhound bus routes southbound out of Dallas.30 We also asked the FBI in July to follow up on an alleged report that there was no palm print on the rifle and to obtain slides or originals of a picture taken by a photographer showing Oswald being removed from the movie theater by police officers.

I believe that the Sixth Floor Museum has an online copy of Howards journal which he kept contemporaneously with his work on the staff of the Warren Commission. If you REALLY think that the reason they requested the follow up is THAT important, you might find more information in his journal.

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3136
Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2024, 01:46:11 PM »
I do not agree that the palmprint was the most important piece of evidence for the reason that I've already given and you appear to accept.  There is ample evidence to link Oswald to the rifle even absent the print.  I'm not sure why you believe the print is so important.  If you agree that the BY photos show Oswald holding the rifle, then you accept that Oswald handled the rifle and his prints could be on it.  The presence of his print on the rifle on 11.22 doesn't mean it came from that day.   What is important is the presence of his rifle at the crime scene on the day of the crime.  If you agree, as you seemingly appear to do so, that this rifle belonged to Oswald and was found at Oswald's place of employment, then the only explanation for its presence is that Oswald brought it there.  There is not a scintilla of evidence that anyone else had access to Oswald's rifle.  When given an opportunity to explain the presence of his rifle at the crime scene, Oswald lied and denied ownership of it.  No criminal in history could ever be convicted of a crime if they could just float the baseless claim that the murder weapon linked to them was planted.  The evidence creates a rebuttable presumption that the rifle was in the sole control of LHO.  No evidence after six decades and counting rebuts that evidence or provides any basis whatsoever to reach a different conclusion.  Simply because it was "possible" for the print to have been planted does not create doubt.  AND even if the print were planted, that would simply mean the DPD framed a guilty person.

I'm not sure why you believe the print is so important

I'm going to assume this comment is some kind of weird joke or a senior moment.
The palmprint is direct evidence placing the rifle found on the 6th floor in the hands of Oswald. The Back Yard Photos show Oswald holding the same type of rifle and that's all.
As far as the DPD were concerned the Mannlicher-Carcano found on the 6th floor was the murder weapon.
They had their prime suspect for the assassination in custody. In the same building as the rifle.
The palmprint could link the two and, because of that, is clearly the most important piece of evidence discovered that day.
Your assertion that the Back Yard Photos were somehow stronger evidence of Oswald's connection to the rifle is really odd. and I think you should distance yourself from it.
If we believe the palmprint is genuine then we have the following situation, according to you - on the day of the assassination the DPD had in their possession the assassination weapon and the assassin himself. They also had a legible palmprint taken from the murder weapon identifying Oswald as the assassin and multiple copies of Oswald's palmprint.
Was this the situation as you perceive it?
And what do you imagine the issues were that caused the Commission to doubt the authenticity of the palmprint in the first place.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2024, 05:36:14 PM by Dan O'meara »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2024, 01:46:11 PM »


Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3136
Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2024, 02:06:29 PM »
According to Howard Willens in his book “History Will Prove Us Right” page 267:

Our effort to document critical facts in Chapter 4 prompted new investigative requests in July and August. While exploring a possible escape route for Oswald, we asked the Secret Service to provide additional information on city bus routes in Dallas and Greyhound bus routes southbound out of Dallas.30 We also asked the FBI in July to follow up on an alleged report that there was no palm print on the rifle and to obtain slides or originals of a picture taken by a photographer showing Oswald being removed from the movie theater by police officers.

I believe that the Sixth Floor Museum has an online copy of Howards journal which he kept contemporaneously with his work on the staff of the Warren Commission. If you REALLY think that the reason they requested the follow up is THAT important, you might find more information in his journal.

Thank you for that information Charles. I will make every effort to find out about this report that there was no palmprint as early as July.
Obviously, Day gave his testimony on April 22nd (along with Curry and Fritz, neither of who made any mention of Day's claim that he had told them about the palmprint.)
Latona had given his evidence at the beginning of April so alarm bells must have been ringing as early as then. They must have become deafening after Day gave his testimony.

And just to say, I don't think it's THAT important that the Commission requested a "follow up".
I think it's THAT important because the Commission questioned the legitimacy of the print. This wasn't crossing the "t"s and dotting the "i"s. This was a fundamental doubt about the sole piece of evidence that directly put the assassination weapon in the hands of the assassin.
Don't you agree that the palmprint was of ultimate importance for this very reason?
Don't you agree it was unusual for the Commission to doubt the veracity of this evidence?

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 969
Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2024, 02:39:31 PM »
I do not see the issue.

I know.

And now neither do you. 

No answer to the dates of the WC inquiries and the FBI responses? Looks like you are back to chasing your tail. Unless you can date the palmprint, how does it place LHO firing the shots or how is it even important? It is known to be LHO’s rifle.  It is known to have fired the shots by having been matched to the shells, bullet, and fragments. It is all there, the only thing that is missing is your understanding of the dates and information provided by the FBI to the WC concerning the WC’s concerns. There is no issue unless you ignore the information, evidence, and dates of correspondence. It makes for a fanciful story but that is all.

The FBI answered not only the WC’s concerns but also yours. They authenticated the palmprint on September 4th. All the WC’s concerns were voiced in July and August. It was all answered on September 4th . 

The rifle was matched to the bullet and fragments. It is the murder weapon and it is Oswalds. The palmprint truly does not matter unless you can place a date on it.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2024, 02:39:31 PM »


Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5126
Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2024, 03:13:39 PM »
I'm not sure why you believe the print is so important

I'm going to assume this comment is some kind of weird joke or a senior moment.
The palmprint is direct evidence placing the rifle found on the 6th floor in the hands of Oswald. The Back Yard Photos show Oswald holding the same type of rifle and that's all.
As far as the DPD were concerned the Mannlicher-Carcano found on the 6th floor was the murder weapon.
They had their prime suspect for the assassination in custody. In the same building as the rifle.
The palmprint could link the two and, because of that, is clearly the most important piece of evidence discovered that day.
Your assertion that the Back Yard Photos were somehow stronger evidence of Oswald's connection to the rifle is really odd. and I think you should distance yourself from it.
If we believe the palmprint is genuine then we have the following situation, according to you - on the day of the assassination the DPD had in their possession the assassination weapon and the assassin himself. They also had a legible palmprint taken from the murder weapon identifying Oswald as the assassin and multiple copies of Oswald's palmprint.
Was this the situation as you perceive it?
And what do you imagine the issues were that caused the Commission to doubt the authenticity of the palmprint in the first place?
They had

Ugh. The BY photos and Klein's documents doesn't place just A rifle in Oswald's hands.  It places THE rifle in his hands.  That rifle had a specific serial number.  The same one as the one left on the 6th floor.  It is the same rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO Box by Klein's.  It is the only rifle associated with him during the relevant time period.  He is pictured holding the rifle.  His wife confirmed he owned a rifle and stored it in the Paine's garage.  When she directs the police to that location on 11.22 just hours after the crime, Oswald's rifle is not there.  After 60 years there is only one way to account for his missing rifle.  It is the one found at his place of employment.  That is confirmed by the serial number.  His print is a cherry on top.  There are additional circumstances that lend themselves to this conclusion.  Oswald made a singular trip to the Paine residence on a Thursday where his wife confirms he kept the rifle on the night before the assassination.  He carries a long package to work with him the next morning that can't be accounted for in any other way than containing the rifle.   His prints are on the bag found next to the SN nest.  He lies about owning any rifle. It's a drumbeat of overwhelming and evidence and circumstances.  There is no doubt whatsoever that the rifle found belonged to Oswald and that he carried to the TSBD that morning. 

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3136
Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2024, 05:49:22 PM »
Ugh. The BY photos and Klein's documents doesn't place just A rifle in Oswald's hands.  It places THE rifle in his hands.  That rifle had a specific serial number.  The same one as the one left on the 6th floor.  It is the same rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO Box by Klein's.  It is the only rifle associated with him during the relevant time period.  He is pictured holding the rifle.  His wife confirmed he owned a rifle and stored it in the Paine's garage.  When she directs the police to that location on 11.22 just hours after the crime, Oswald's rifle is not there.  After 60 years there is only one way to account for his missing rifle.  It is the one found at his place of employment.  That is confirmed by the serial number.  His print is a cherry on top.  There are additional circumstances that lend themselves to this conclusion.  Oswald made a singular trip to the Paine residence on a Thursday where his wife confirms he kept the rifle on the night before the assassination.  He carries a long package to work with him the next morning that can't be accounted for in any other way than containing the rifle.   His prints are on the bag found next to the SN nest.  He lies about owning any rifle. It's a drumbeat of overwhelming and evidence and circumstances.  There is no doubt whatsoever that the rifle found belonged to Oswald and that he carried to the TSBD that morning.

Nice tirade Richard (talk about "no mas")
Let's try again eh?

If we believe the palmprint is genuine then we have the following situation, according to you - on the day of the assassination the DPD had in their possession the assassination weapon and the assassin himself. They also had a legible palmprint taken from the murder weapon identifying Oswald as the assassin and multiple copies of Oswald's palmprint.
Was this the situation as you perceive it?
And what do you imagine the issues were that caused the Commission to doubt the authenticity of the palmprint in the first place.


I couldn't disagree more when you refer to the print of the suspected assassin on the assassination weapon as "a cherry on top". I find that really difficult to process.
And how you can imagine that a picture of Oswald holding a Mannlicher-Carcano is stronger evidence than Oswald's actual print on the actual rifle found on the floor the shots were taken from, is way beyond me.

Just to emphasise the point I'm making:
According to you, on the day of the assassination the DPD had lifted a legible print from the weapon they believed was the assassination weapon. This print could identify who shot the President of the United States. And you think this piece of evidence was a "cherry on top"?
You attribute less importance to this piece of evidence than you do a picture of Oswald holding a Mannlicher-Carcano.  ???


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2024, 05:49:22 PM »


Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5126
Re: The Palmprint
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2024, 07:50:27 PM »
Nice tirade Richard (talk about "no mas")
Let's try again eh?

If we believe the palmprint is genuine then we have the following situation, according to you - on the day of the assassination the DPD had in their possession the assassination weapon and the assassin himself. They also had a legible palmprint taken from the murder weapon identifying Oswald as the assassin and multiple copies of Oswald's palmprint.
Was this the situation as you perceive it?
And what do you imagine the issues were that caused the Commission to doubt the authenticity of the palmprint in the first place.


I couldn't disagree more when you refer to the print of the suspected assassin on the assassination weapon as "a cherry on top". I find that really difficult to process.
And how you can imagine that a picture of Oswald holding a Mannlicher-Carcano is stronger evidence than Oswald's actual print on the actual rifle found on the floor the shots were taken from, is way beyond me.

Just to emphasise the point I'm making:
According to you, on the day of the assassination the DPD had lifted a legible print from the weapon they believed was the assassination weapon. This print could identify who shot the President of the United States. And you think this piece of evidence was a "cherry on top"?
You attribute less importance to this piece of evidence than you do a picture of Oswald holding a Mannlicher-Carcano.  ???

You are ignoring the totality of evidence and circumstances.  The photo and print do link Oswald to the rifle.  But that is not all the evidence.  Klein's sent a rifle with a specific serial number to Oswald's PO Box.  I assume that you must agree that Oswald obtained that rifle.  Otherwise what happened to it?  It wasn't sent back to them.  It is not still at the Dallas post office.  There is no accounting for it except the most logical conclusion that something sent to his PO Box was obtained by the owner of that box.  What else?  Oswald's own wife confirms that he came into possession of a rifle in the relevant timeframe.  She took pictures of Oswald holding this rifle.  The rifle that Klein's sent to Oswald's PO Box has the SAME serial number as the rifle left at Oswald's place of employment.  Photo experts have indicated the rifle in those photos is the same one found in the TSBD.  This doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots.  The fact that it also has Oswald's prints on it is a cherry on top to link him to that rifle.  With or without the print, there is no doubt Oswald possessed that specific rifle.  His wife confirms that he stored it in the Paine's garage.  We know he visited the Paine residence the night before the assassination.  We know he carried a long package to work the next morning that can't be accounted for in any other way except to carry his rifle.  Oswald's prints are also found on the long bag next to the SN.  We know his rifle is gone from the Paine's garage just hours after the assassination and that rifle can't be accounted for in any other way except for being the one found at the TSBD.  Oswald had a chance to explain all this.  Instead he lied about his ownership of any rifle.  A lie is indicative of guilt.   This is a stone cold solid case with or without the print.  It is difficult even to imagine how there could be any more evidence than exists to link Oswald to the rifle and the rifle to crime.