Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 14, 2022 19:23:21 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
i.pinimg.com/originals/ba/50/9d/ba509d92839507d46f3bca044d81e7df.jpg
1.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s1600/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg
FBI Agent Sebastian Latona was an expert in the area of fingerprint identification. He taught classes on this topic and one student of his class was Lieutenant Carl Day of the Dallas Police Department (DPD). It was claimed by the Warren Commission (WC) that Day processed the alleged murder weapon – Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) – after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK).
And yet, Latona wasn't told who supposedly processed the rifle before he received it.[/b]
Mr. DULLES. Who placed the cellophane material there, in your opinion?
Mr. LATONA. Well, I was told--my information was simply that the Dallas Police Department had done so. I have no personal knowledge as to who did it, other than information that the Dallas Police had examined the weapon and they had found these visible marks on there, that they had developed the prints. Now, by what means they did it, I do not know, but I would assume they used a gray powder.
Mr. DULLES. What was the purpose of putting the cellophane there?
Mr. LATONA. To protect the prints while the rifle was in transit to the FBI.
Isn’t this strange? Why was Latona NOT told who did the processing by the DPD? Why was no information given to him that Lt. Day did the work? That seems strange to me. Who could he call if he had any questions?
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.
So we see the ridge formations near the trigger-guard area were worthless. Why is that? I mean LHO wore NO gloves so how did he NOT leave an identifiable print IF he handled the weapon as claimed (of course the same thing can be said for the shell casings, bolt, clip and insides of the weapon too)?
Of course being the WC they would try to obscure this point with this question.
Mr. DULLES. Is is likely or possible that those fingerprints could have been damaged or eroded in the passage from Texas to your hands?
Mr. LATONA. No, sir ; I don't think so. In fact, I think we got the prints just like they were…
Nice try though, huh? Look at this very interesting comment by Latona!
Mr. DULLES. The witness has certified to the fact that these are true photographs of the prints that we have seen.
Representative BOGGS. And the witness has also certified that those are Oswald's prints?
Mr. LATONA. No; I cannot certify to that.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you want to explain that?
Mr. LATONA. As I am not the one that fingerprinted Oswald, I cannot tell from my own personal knowledge that those are actually the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald.
He is basically saying he is ONLY assuming the prints given to him are of LHO as he has NO way of knowing for sure since he did NOT fingerprint him!
Mr. EISENBERG. But you can certify that those prints are identical with the prints on the card which bears the name of Lee Harvey Oswald which was furnished to you?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Big deal! They could have put one of the real assassins prints on a card and labeled it LHO for all Latona knew! How would he know for sure when he NEVER printed LHO or had a chance to view his hands himself? He wouldn’t of course. IF you doubt they would plant the palm print just read this admission by Latona.
Mr. EISENBERG. We will get other evidence in the record at a subsequent time to show those were the prints of Oswald. Mr. Latona, you were saying that you had worked over that rifle by applying a gray powder to it. Did you develop any fingerprints?
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.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip?
Mr. LATONA. That included the clip, that included the bolt, it included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were cartridge cases furnished to you at that time?
Mr. LATONA. They were, which I processed, and from which I got no prints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Therefore, the net result of your work on Exhibit 139 was that you could not produce an identifiable print?
Mr. LATONA. That's correct.
They could NOT find one print of LHO’s on the rifle (inside and out), the clip or the shell casings. Talk about desperation time!
Mr. EISENBERG. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Panic alarms must have been going off at this point. No wonder Wade did NOT mention fingerprints at this point, huh?
There would be confusion by the three (Day, Latona and WC) regarding the alleged lift as I said. Here is what each said about it.
WC - Lt. Day did a lift and it was so good it left NOTHING of the print on the rifle.
Day - He said he did a lift but could still see the print when he was done.
Latona - He said he saw NO indication of a lift being done.
To add insult to injury, Day NEVER photographed the alleged print PRIOR to his alleged lift, thus, he violated all crime scene procedures by ignoring this key piece of the evidence gathering phase.
Walt said this to me!
"Latona was talking about the METAL gun barrel.... Day lifted that smudge from the WOODEN foregrip.” (Walt)
This is a lie on so many levels. Latona examined the WHOLE rifle and he was NOT limiting his comments to the "metal gun barrel" as Walt claims. He said he found NO palm print on the metal gun barrel as Lt. Day claimed, but when he said he saw NO INDICATION of a lift he was referring to the ENTIRE rifle, not just the gun barrel as he would have had to be blind not to see it IF one had been done. (IV, p. 24) Still, Walt continues to claim a lift was done and a "smudged print" was found on the wooden foregrip. What evidence has Walt provided for this claim? NONE! I have been told instead to get my "head out of my butt and think", but NO evidence has been given.
So we have a claim by Walt, and this is a claim many others have made, and they ALL are LNers! What does Ben think of this claim of Walt's? Who knows as he won't say, but research into his past words have shown us exactly what he thinks.
Long story short he would later claim he lifted a palm print from the underside of the metal gun barrel and send this on to the FBI on the night of the assassination. Walt, who is on this board, tells a different lie. He claims Lt. Day lied about the print being on the gun barrel as it was instead on the wooden foregrip!
They are both lying based on the evidence we have as the FBI's Sebastian Latona was the expert who took possession of the rifle in question just hours after Lt. Day finished his claimed processing and ran tests on it. He found the following during his examination and tests:
1) The ONLY area that had anything in the way of prints was near the trigger guard and these were simply ridge formations that were worthless in terms of identification.
2) That he saw NO indication of a lift ever being done on the rifle in question, thus, Lt. Day's claim of doing one was shown to be a lie.
3) It was Latona's expert opinion that NO processing (i.e. search for prints with powder) had been done to the rifle in question, thus, Lt. Day's claims of processing it were another lie.
Yet when FBI expert Sebastian Latona received the rifle he said the following:
1) He saw NO trace of a palm print on the barrel.
2) He saw NO indication of a lift having been done.
3) That there had been “no attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.” (IV, p. 24)
So we had the WC claim the lift was complete, Lt. Day say he saw the palm print still after the lift, and Latona say he saw NO indication of a lift having been done! Some evidence, huh?
Mr. EISENBERG. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?
Mr. LATONA. This exhibit Or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you receive this item?
Mr. LATONA. I received this item November 29, 1963.
i.pinimg.com/originals/ba/50/9d/ba509d92839507d46f3bca044d81e7df.jpg
1.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s1600/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg
FBI Agent Sebastian Latona was an expert in the area of fingerprint identification. He taught classes on this topic and one student of his class was Lieutenant Carl Day of the Dallas Police Department (DPD). It was claimed by the Warren Commission (WC) that Day processed the alleged murder weapon – Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) – after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK).
And yet, Latona wasn't told who supposedly processed the rifle before he received it.[/b]
Mr. DULLES. Who placed the cellophane material there, in your opinion?
Mr. LATONA. Well, I was told--my information was simply that the Dallas Police Department had done so. I have no personal knowledge as to who did it, other than information that the Dallas Police had examined the weapon and they had found these visible marks on there, that they had developed the prints. Now, by what means they did it, I do not know, but I would assume they used a gray powder.
Mr. DULLES. What was the purpose of putting the cellophane there?
Mr. LATONA. To protect the prints while the rifle was in transit to the FBI.
Isn’t this strange? Why was Latona NOT told who did the processing by the DPD? Why was no information given to him that Lt. Day did the work? That seems strange to me. Who could he call if he had any questions?
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.
So we see the ridge formations near the trigger-guard area were worthless. Why is that? I mean LHO wore NO gloves so how did he NOT leave an identifiable print IF he handled the weapon as claimed (of course the same thing can be said for the shell casings, bolt, clip and insides of the weapon too)?
Of course being the WC they would try to obscure this point with this question.
Mr. DULLES. Is is likely or possible that those fingerprints could have been damaged or eroded in the passage from Texas to your hands?
Mr. LATONA. No, sir ; I don't think so. In fact, I think we got the prints just like they were…
Nice try though, huh? Look at this very interesting comment by Latona!
Mr. DULLES. The witness has certified to the fact that these are true photographs of the prints that we have seen.
Representative BOGGS. And the witness has also certified that those are Oswald's prints?
Mr. LATONA. No; I cannot certify to that.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you want to explain that?
Mr. LATONA. As I am not the one that fingerprinted Oswald, I cannot tell from my own personal knowledge that those are actually the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald.
He is basically saying he is ONLY assuming the prints given to him are of LHO as he has NO way of knowing for sure since he did NOT fingerprint him!
Mr. EISENBERG. But you can certify that those prints are identical with the prints on the card which bears the name of Lee Harvey Oswald which was furnished to you?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Big deal! They could have put one of the real assassins prints on a card and labeled it LHO for all Latona knew! How would he know for sure when he NEVER printed LHO or had a chance to view his hands himself? He wouldn’t of course. IF you doubt they would plant the palm print just read this admission by Latona.
Mr. EISENBERG. We will get other evidence in the record at a subsequent time to show those were the prints of Oswald. Mr. Latona, you were saying that you had worked over that rifle by applying a gray powder to it. Did you develop any fingerprints?
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.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip?
Mr. LATONA. That included the clip, that included the bolt, it included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were cartridge cases furnished to you at that time?
Mr. LATONA. They were, which I processed, and from which I got no prints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Therefore, the net result of your work on Exhibit 139 was that you could not produce an identifiable print?
Mr. LATONA. That's correct.
They could NOT find one print of LHO’s on the rifle (inside and out), the clip or the shell casings. Talk about desperation time!
Mr. EISENBERG. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Panic alarms must have been going off at this point. No wonder Wade did NOT mention fingerprints at this point, huh?
There would be confusion by the three (Day, Latona and WC) regarding the alleged lift as I said. Here is what each said about it.
WC - Lt. Day did a lift and it was so good it left NOTHING of the print on the rifle.
Day - He said he did a lift but could still see the print when he was done.
Latona - He said he saw NO indication of a lift being done.
To add insult to injury, Day NEVER photographed the alleged print PRIOR to his alleged lift, thus, he violated all crime scene procedures by ignoring this key piece of the evidence gathering phase.
Walt said this to me!
"Latona was talking about the METAL gun barrel.... Day lifted that smudge from the WOODEN foregrip.” (Walt)
This is a lie on so many levels. Latona examined the WHOLE rifle and he was NOT limiting his comments to the "metal gun barrel" as Walt claims. He said he found NO palm print on the metal gun barrel as Lt. Day claimed, but when he said he saw NO INDICATION of a lift he was referring to the ENTIRE rifle, not just the gun barrel as he would have had to be blind not to see it IF one had been done. (IV, p. 24) Still, Walt continues to claim a lift was done and a "smudged print" was found on the wooden foregrip. What evidence has Walt provided for this claim? NONE! I have been told instead to get my "head out of my butt and think", but NO evidence has been given.
So we have a claim by Walt, and this is a claim many others have made, and they ALL are LNers! What does Ben think of this claim of Walt's? Who knows as he won't say, but research into his past words have shown us exactly what he thinks.
Long story short he would later claim he lifted a palm print from the underside of the metal gun barrel and send this on to the FBI on the night of the assassination. Walt, who is on this board, tells a different lie. He claims Lt. Day lied about the print being on the gun barrel as it was instead on the wooden foregrip!
They are both lying based on the evidence we have as the FBI's Sebastian Latona was the expert who took possession of the rifle in question just hours after Lt. Day finished his claimed processing and ran tests on it. He found the following during his examination and tests:
1) The ONLY area that had anything in the way of prints was near the trigger guard and these were simply ridge formations that were worthless in terms of identification.
2) That he saw NO indication of a lift ever being done on the rifle in question, thus, Lt. Day's claim of doing one was shown to be a lie.
3) It was Latona's expert opinion that NO processing (i.e. search for prints with powder) had been done to the rifle in question, thus, Lt. Day's claims of processing it were another lie.
Yet when FBI expert Sebastian Latona received the rifle he said the following:
1) He saw NO trace of a palm print on the barrel.
2) He saw NO indication of a lift having been done.
3) That there had been “no attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.” (IV, p. 24)
So we had the WC claim the lift was complete, Lt. Day say he saw the palm print still after the lift, and Latona say he saw NO indication of a lift having been done! Some evidence, huh?
Mr. EISENBERG. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?
Mr. LATONA. This exhibit Or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you receive this item?
Mr. LATONA. I received this item November 29, 1963.