Post by John Duncan on Oct 1, 2022 16:12:01 GMT -5
By Raymond Gallagher
12/10/09
An interesting aside to Lt. Carl Day and prints on the rifle:
In Lieutenant Day's official statement, he said that he only found the "old dry print" on the underside of the barrel after he removed the wooden part of the rifle by loosening three or four screws. He said that it was not visible when the gun was assembled. What led him to look was some impressions near the clip housing, so he decided to look underneath the wood stock. He stated "This print appeared to be the right palm print of some individual."
This print was found on the underside of the barrel which was completely covered by the wooden stock of the gun and not visible until he had removed the wooden portion of the front end of the wooden stock. Lt. Day estimated "this print was within three inches of the front end of the wooden stock."
He dusted this print with black powder and made one lift then carefully reassembled the weapon, "and when the wooden stock was reassembled to the barrel of the gun, this afforded the print that was still visible on the underside of the barrel sufficient protection that it would not be disturbed in his estimation..."
This print was not found when the gun arrived in Washington. Day told Posner. "I respect the FBI...I know I told Drain. I don't know if he heard me or what. I don't know what happened...I can't gurantee it was still there when it got to the FBI office, etc..." (Read Posner, "Case Closed", p. 285.)
Day said that there was no reason for wrapping the palm print on the underside of the barrel with any protective covering since it was protected by the wood stock when it was fully assembled and that it
was not necessary to use cellophane or other protective coating as it would have been on the exposed prints." (CE 3185.)
Drain said, "Bullshit," Day told Gerald Posner that there were some looping impressions as opposed to arches and whorls and it turned out that Lee had looping impressions. He said that there was a print partially developed," and I could see it running under the stock, so I lifted the gun out of the stock."
Return to Posner:
"Day had so completely lifted the palm print that the FBI, in its November 24 examination of the rifle, did not find any evidence of it. No one knew that Oswald's print was found on the rifle until Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade told a reporter in the press confrence on November 24..." The print was important because it was the first piece of direct evidence that placed the rifle in Oswald's hands..." (Case Closed, pp. 283-264.)
I call this: All In A Day's Work.
Gary Savage , nephew of "Rusty" Livingston tells us in his book, JFK, FIRST DAY EVIDENCE that most if not all Crime Lab Officers saw and compared the palm print themselves, including his uncle. (Highly
unlikely since his uncle did not report for work until the 11 pm shift, pp. 77-81. His book.)
Day claims that only two other people knew about the palm print, Police Chief Curry and Captain Fritz and he did not remember at what time he told them or at what time he made the lift. (CE No. 3145.)
Comment by --- James Olmstead:
"...If you have a chance to review some of the film taken of Day and Fritz in the TSBD that has been included in various "videos"...in all sequences where Fritz and Day are together dusting the MC keep your eyes focused on the "hands of Fritz"...there is a stronger chance that the "barrel print".belongs to Fritz then to Lee...Fritz's hand is in the area of where the print was placed...no record of Lee placing his hand in this area can be establlshed...your comments after re-veiwing the footage."
Let me interject some comments concerning the latent images developed on the underside of the barrel.
First, there is some concern over the exact location of the latent images.
The indication is that the latent image was in the area where the wooden stock ends. The problems are seen in CE 637, 639 and 640 if one looks at the evidence on the "defense" side of the evaluation problems can be noted. But if you accept the evidence as presented you will not "want to" see the conflicts.
The first requires that you look at CE 1304 and see the proper landmarks of the barrel. There are two "features" to the barrel, the rear sight and I believe the bayonet mount just before the front sight.
Now look at CE 639 the bayonet mount "should" be seen in this exhibit and is not seen. Therefore the placement of the image in not "near the end of foregrip" or the mounting "feature" would be seen...there is enough of the barrel in CE 639 on either side of the latent image for this feature to be seen if the image is located where it is presented as being.
There are other conflicts of the evaluation but without knowledge of fingerprint comparison of points of indentification the conflicts are difficult to understand. There are about 6 key featurespresented that just don't "line up" when they should. I can't present this material at this time...but if one looks hard enough they can see the conflict without being an "expert" or even a layman student of fingerprint identification.
As to "partial" development.....sometimes images are not recovered "in full" because the medium used to develop the latent is not properly applied.
From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint
"Latent prints may exhibit only a small portion of the surface of the finger and may be smudged, distorted, overlapping, or any combination, depending on how they were deposited. For these reasons, latent prints are an “inevitable source of error in making comparisons,” as they generally “contain less clarity, less content, and less undistorted information than a fingerprint taken under controlled conditions, and much, much less detail compared to the actual patterns of ridges and
grooves of a finger"
Zabell, Sandy "Fingerprint Evidence" Journal of Law and Policy
12/10/09
An interesting aside to Lt. Carl Day and prints on the rifle:
In Lieutenant Day's official statement, he said that he only found the "old dry print" on the underside of the barrel after he removed the wooden part of the rifle by loosening three or four screws. He said that it was not visible when the gun was assembled. What led him to look was some impressions near the clip housing, so he decided to look underneath the wood stock. He stated "This print appeared to be the right palm print of some individual."
This print was found on the underside of the barrel which was completely covered by the wooden stock of the gun and not visible until he had removed the wooden portion of the front end of the wooden stock. Lt. Day estimated "this print was within three inches of the front end of the wooden stock."
He dusted this print with black powder and made one lift then carefully reassembled the weapon, "and when the wooden stock was reassembled to the barrel of the gun, this afforded the print that was still visible on the underside of the barrel sufficient protection that it would not be disturbed in his estimation..."
This print was not found when the gun arrived in Washington. Day told Posner. "I respect the FBI...I know I told Drain. I don't know if he heard me or what. I don't know what happened...I can't gurantee it was still there when it got to the FBI office, etc..." (Read Posner, "Case Closed", p. 285.)
Day said that there was no reason for wrapping the palm print on the underside of the barrel with any protective covering since it was protected by the wood stock when it was fully assembled and that it
was not necessary to use cellophane or other protective coating as it would have been on the exposed prints." (CE 3185.)
Drain said, "Bullshit," Day told Gerald Posner that there were some looping impressions as opposed to arches and whorls and it turned out that Lee had looping impressions. He said that there was a print partially developed," and I could see it running under the stock, so I lifted the gun out of the stock."
Return to Posner:
"Day had so completely lifted the palm print that the FBI, in its November 24 examination of the rifle, did not find any evidence of it. No one knew that Oswald's print was found on the rifle until Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade told a reporter in the press confrence on November 24..." The print was important because it was the first piece of direct evidence that placed the rifle in Oswald's hands..." (Case Closed, pp. 283-264.)
I call this: All In A Day's Work.
Gary Savage , nephew of "Rusty" Livingston tells us in his book, JFK, FIRST DAY EVIDENCE that most if not all Crime Lab Officers saw and compared the palm print themselves, including his uncle. (Highly
unlikely since his uncle did not report for work until the 11 pm shift, pp. 77-81. His book.)
Day claims that only two other people knew about the palm print, Police Chief Curry and Captain Fritz and he did not remember at what time he told them or at what time he made the lift. (CE No. 3145.)
Comment by --- James Olmstead:
"...If you have a chance to review some of the film taken of Day and Fritz in the TSBD that has been included in various "videos"...in all sequences where Fritz and Day are together dusting the MC keep your eyes focused on the "hands of Fritz"...there is a stronger chance that the "barrel print".belongs to Fritz then to Lee...Fritz's hand is in the area of where the print was placed...no record of Lee placing his hand in this area can be establlshed...your comments after re-veiwing the footage."
Let me interject some comments concerning the latent images developed on the underside of the barrel.
First, there is some concern over the exact location of the latent images.
The indication is that the latent image was in the area where the wooden stock ends. The problems are seen in CE 637, 639 and 640 if one looks at the evidence on the "defense" side of the evaluation problems can be noted. But if you accept the evidence as presented you will not "want to" see the conflicts.
The first requires that you look at CE 1304 and see the proper landmarks of the barrel. There are two "features" to the barrel, the rear sight and I believe the bayonet mount just before the front sight.
Now look at CE 639 the bayonet mount "should" be seen in this exhibit and is not seen. Therefore the placement of the image in not "near the end of foregrip" or the mounting "feature" would be seen...there is enough of the barrel in CE 639 on either side of the latent image for this feature to be seen if the image is located where it is presented as being.
There are other conflicts of the evaluation but without knowledge of fingerprint comparison of points of indentification the conflicts are difficult to understand. There are about 6 key featurespresented that just don't "line up" when they should. I can't present this material at this time...but if one looks hard enough they can see the conflict without being an "expert" or even a layman student of fingerprint identification.
As to "partial" development.....sometimes images are not recovered "in full" because the medium used to develop the latent is not properly applied.
From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint
"Latent prints may exhibit only a small portion of the surface of the finger and may be smudged, distorted, overlapping, or any combination, depending on how they were deposited. For these reasons, latent prints are an “inevitable source of error in making comparisons,” as they generally “contain less clarity, less content, and less undistorted information than a fingerprint taken under controlled conditions, and much, much less detail compared to the actual patterns of ridges and
grooves of a finger"
Zabell, Sandy "Fingerprint Evidence" Journal of Law and Policy