Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 14, 2022 19:39:05 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
i.pinimg.com/originals/ba/50/9d/ba509d92839507d46f3bca044d81e7df.jpg
www.awesomestories.com/images/user/62570dd4ff.jpg
Let’s continue with our look at the alleged palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald’s (LHO) that was claimed to have been found on the alleged murder weapon, CE-139, that had NO connection to LHO! As we saw in the previous post this print allegedly found on CE-139 had NO chain of custody to it.
Lt. Carl Day could NOT show he took it off the rifle at the time of discovery as he FAILED to photograph the print on the rifle before he did an alleged LIFT of the print. I say alleged because the FBI would say they saw “no indication” of a lift being done when they got the rifle in the early hours of 11/23/63.
The FBI’s expert, Sebastian Latona, would also say he had NO firsthand knowledge of LHO’s prints as he NEVER printed him or saw his hands. Thus, he was working with what he was told were LHO’s prints. That is something to keep in mind when you read this and the other claims of prints regarding the alleged bag and boxes.
*******************************************
Lt. Day arrived at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) shortly after the rifle was found allegedly around 1:22 PM (I say allegedly as there is just as good, if not better, evidence that it was found at 1:06 PM). He claimed to process it for fingerprints, but forgot to photograph it BEFORE HE processed it as crime scene procedures call for. In the official theory Lt. Day claimed to have done a lift (the evidence does NOT support the claim of ANY lift having been done) on the metal barrel on the underside of the rifle when he REMOVED the wooden fore-grip.
Sebastian Latona was the FBI expert who viewed the rifle just hours after it was found and he is on record (WC testimony) that he saw NO prints and saw NO indication of a lift having been done. Latona had been at this a long time and had way more experience than Lt. Day and had access to better equipment; and all he said he found were a few unidentifiable ridge formations near the trigger-guard. That is it! He would also say that after viewing the rifle he found there had been NO processing done on it prior to him receiving it. By processing he means dusting for prints and lifts to name a few. Thus, the claims of Lt. Day and the Warren Commission (WC) that this rifle was processed by Lt. Day do NOT hold up.
Latona would also teach classes and Lt. Day would attend some of these, so again, it shows who had much more experience when it comes to these matters. Let’s look at some of Latona’s WC testimony.
Mr. EISENBERG. And could you briefly outline your qualifications as a fingerprint expert?
Mr. LATONA. Well, I have been with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a little more than 32 years. I started in the identification division as a student fingerprint classifier, and since that time I have worked myself up into where I am now supervisor of the latent fingerprint section.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you approximate the number of fingerprint examinations you have made?
Mr. LATONA. Frankly, no. There have been so many in that time that I would not be able to give even a good guess.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would the figure run in the thousands or hundreds?
Mr. LATONA. So far as comparisons are concerned, in the millions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified in court?
Mr. LATONA. I have testified in Federal courts, State courts, commissioners' hearings, military courts, and at deportation proceedings.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask that this witness be accepted as an expert.
The CHAIRMAN. The witness is qualified.
So we see he has been at this for 32 years by 1963/64 and has processed MILLIONS of prints! Can Lt. Day say this? NO. So in any normal trial the weight would be given to Latona’s testimony due to his greater experience. Here is what he said about prints and how they are viewed.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you briefly outline for us the theory of fingerprint identification?
Mr. LATONA. The principle of fingerprint identification is based on the fact primarily that the ridge formations that appear on the hands and on the soles of the feet actually are created approximately 2 to 3 months before birth, on the unborn child, and they remain constant in the same position in which they are formed until the person is dead and the body is consumed by decomposition.
Secondly, the fact that no two people, or no two fingers of the same person, have the same arrangement of these ridge formations, either on the fingers, the palms, or the soles and toes of the feet. Plus the fact that during the lifetime of a person this ridge formation does not change, it remains constant--from the time it is formed until actual destruction, either caused by voluntary or involuntary means, or upon the death of the body and decomposition.
This shows IF LHO’s prints were on the rifle then Lt. Day should have been able to ID them as “NO two people…have the same arrangement of these ridge formations…”, but we saw he could NOT ID either the prints near the trigger guard or the alleged palm print! How come?
Now, here is the testimony pertaining to the alleged murder weapon (CE-139).
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, I hand you Commission Exhibit 139 which, for the record, consists of the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD building, and which ,was identified yesterday as the rifle and the day before yesterday--as the rifle which fired the fatal bullets, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this weapon?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. And did you examine this weapon to test--did you examine this weapon to determine whether there were any identifiable latent fingerprints on it?
Mr. LATONA. I examined the weapon to determine whether there were any identifiable latent prints on the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive the weapon?
Mr. LATONA. On the morning of November 23, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you proceed to make your examination?
Mr. LATONA. I proceeded to make my examination that same day that I received it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us what techniques you used?
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. 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 Dallas Police Department (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. Remember this for later!
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 D.A. Henry Wade did NOT mention fingerprints at this point, huh? What to do, what to do? Oh, that is right, we got a “palm print” for you to study a WHOLE WEEK after the assassination!
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.
Why was Latona given the palm print on 11/29/63 INSTEAD of 11/23/63 you may ask? You can deduce this for yourselves. Here he describes what a lift is for us.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you describe to us what a lift is?
Mr. LATONA. A lift is merely a piece of adhesive material which is used for purposes of removing a print that has been previously developed on an object, onto the adhesive material. Then the adhesive material is placed on a hacking, in this case which happens to be the card. The adhesive material utilized here is similar to scotch tape. There are different types of lifting material. Some of them are known as opaque lifters, which are made of rubber, like a black rubber and white rubber, which has an adhesive material affixed to it, and this material is simply laid on a print which has been previously developed on an object and the full print is merely removed from the object.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "the print" is removed, actually the powder----
Mr. LATONA. The powder that adhered to the original latent print is picked off of the object.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that the impression actually is removed?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Representative FORD. Is that a recognized technique?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; it is.
Representative FORD. In the fingerprinting business?
Mr. LATONA. It is very common, one of the most common methods of recording latent prints.
We see here Latona says that the recognized fact is that the print WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE OBJECT when a lift is done, but Lt. Day opts to NOT photograph the print FIRST! Then, he will say he can still see it AFTER the lift to cover for the fact he should have known the print would be gone after the lift. Did he photograph the print after the lift when he could still see it? NO. So he FAILED to photograph the print on the rifle at any time. Why? So we are just supposed to take his word for it when he REFUSED to sign a document saying how he found it and what he did with it for the FBI? Please.
An interesting side note involves the clip. When a rifle is processed it is taken apart (I mean that is how he supposedly saw the palm print, right?) and as safety feature the ammo and clip (if one is present) are removed, but again in this case this did NOT happen as NO mention of a clip is ever found. NO photos of the clip inside the rifle (remember, the WC claimed it was “jammed” in there) were ever made either. There is NOT one piece of evidence that shows a clip was ever used on 11/22/63 as one was NOT even found in the alleged SN based on the evidence. The ONLY thing we have is a photo taken at least 30 minutes LATER showing one hanging out (I thought it was “jammed”?) as the rifle is taken out of the TSBD.
Mr. EISENBERG. Who did you get this exhibit, this lift from?
Mr. LATONA. This lift was referred to us by the FBI Dallas office.
Mr. EISENBERG. And were you told anything about its origin?
Mr. LATONA. We were advised that this print had been developed by the Dallas Police Department, and, as the lift itself indicates, from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, may I say for the record that at a subsequent point we will have the testimony of the police officer of the Dallas police who developed this print, and made the lift; and I believe that the print was taken from underneath the portion of the barrel which is covered by the stock. Now, did you attempt to identify this print which shows on the lift Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you succeed in making identification?
Mr. LATONA. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.
Mr. EISENBERG. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
BUT, remember what he said earlier, HE ONLY KNEW WHAT HE WAS TOLD. The card said it was LHO’s prints and that is what he went with. I don’t need to play the “planted” game as LNers like to accuse the CTters of since NO chain of custody exists for this alleged palm print, but it needs to still be pointed out that Latona said he had NO DIRECT knowledge of what LHO’s prints looked like since he NEVER printed him or looked at his hands. That is key to remember.
Speaking of lucky!
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle, but several days later by virtue of the receipt of this lift, which did not come with the weapon originally, the FBI did succeed in identifying a print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
How lucky for the DPD, FBI and WC that a palm print suddenly showed up then, huh?
Mr. EISENBERG. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?
Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.
Mr. DULLES. Do I understand then that if there is a lifting of this kind, that it may obliterate----
Mr. LATONA. Completely.
Mr. DULLES. The original print?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
But wait! Didn’t Lt. Day claim he could still see the print AFTER the lift? I think so.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
How can this be? It can’t. Why would Lt. Day lie under oath? I will let you decide why for yourself, but it is obvious he did. Here is the confusion regarding the lift in a nutshell and 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 (or after when he claimed to see the print still), thus, he violated all crime scene procedures by ignoring this key piece of the evidence gathering phase. There was NO way to show the print was ever on the rifle, and of course many researchers have come to the conclusion that one never was that belonged to LHO. There is NO other explanation for Lt. Day’s shoddy work IMO. This says it all to me.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that you personally, Mr. Latona, did not know anything about a print being on the rifle which was identifiable until you received, actually received the lift, Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. On the 29th of November.
Mr. EISENBERG. Seven days after the assassination. And in the intervening period, correspondingly, the FBI had no such knowledge?
Mr. LATONA. As far as I know.
Wow! How do you think this would have played in a courtroom? No wonder he had to be gotten rid of before any trial could take place, huh? Even this part boggles the mind in terms of making sense!
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you tell us what portion of the palm of Lee Harvey Oswald you identified that print as being?
Mr. LATONA. Yes. Here again I have a photograph that will show the approximate area involved, which is on the ulnar side of the lower portion of the palm.
Mr. EISENBERG. The ulnar----
Mr. LATONA. Down near the base of the palm toward the wrist.
Mr. EISENBERG. This is the right palm?
Mr. LATONA. The right palm.
Mr. EISENBERG. As it was in the case of the paper bag, Exhibit 142?
Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.
What are the odds of him touching the bag and the rifle IN THE EXACT SAME WAY? I would think pretty astronomical myself, but that is what was seen. To me this shows his prints were planted as NO one touches objects in the EXACT SAME way all the time.
Look at this excuse for why NO prints were on the gun.
Representative BOGGS. May I ask another question in this connection. A weapon of this type, in your examination do you find a lot of other prints on it as well? You do not?
Mr. LATONA. No. First of all the weapon itself is a cheap one as you can see. It is one that----
Representative BOGGS. Is what?
Mr. LATONA. A cheap old weapon. The wood is to the point where it won't take a good print to begin with hardly. The metal isn't of the best, and not readily susceptible to a latent print.
And yet, THE PALM PRINT WAS THERE TO FIND! Can anyone say LUCKY again? Based on this comment, how in the world did the palm print adhere to the barrel?
Boggs was thorough though. He kept asking about the cops picking up the weapon and leaving prints though, so obviously even he did NOT buy what Latona was saying, otherwise, why keep asking questions like this?
Representative BOGGS. What I am trying to determine is, the average police officer when he would pick up a weapon of that kind would take steps to secure whatever prints might be on that and also prevent the addition of prints, is that right?
--------------
Representative BOGGS. I mean this is part of his training, isn't it?
Who cares since Latona said NO print would adhere to that “cheap, old rifle” anyway except for the MAGIC PALM PRINT of course?
Finally, the WC asks a great question!
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, just to elaborate on some questions which Mr. Boggs was asking earlier, Mr. Latona, referring specifically to this weapon, do you believe that a determination could have been made as to the age of the print found on the weapon which you have identified as being Oswald's print, and a lift of which is Exhibit No. 637?
Mr. LATONA. No; I don't.
Mr. EISENBERG. You don't?
Mr. LATONA. No; I don't.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are experts unanimous in this opinion?
Mr. LATONA. No; they are not. There are some experts who contend that they can determine from the way the print develops, and they will use the term "fresh." Now, on the other hand, so far as the definition of "fresh," then it resolves itself into an hour, a day, a week, a month. What is "fresh" as aside from an "old" one? And my opinion simply is this. That on the basis of the print itself, on the basis of the print itself I cannot determine how old it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. At least specifically on this type, or in particular focusing on this type of weapon?
Mr. LATONA. Particularly on that weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
WITHOUT being able to determine how old the print was (and again, he never printed or saw LHO’s hands for himself and he got the print on a CARD not from the rifle himself) there is NO way to show LHO would have left it on 11/22/63 as claimed! He could have touched the rifle weeks before for all we know.
Once again, the WC is sunk in it’s claim. Here is a recap of what we have discussed:
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. (IV, p. 24)
What do you think of the alleged palm print now?
i.pinimg.com/originals/ba/50/9d/ba509d92839507d46f3bca044d81e7df.jpg
www.awesomestories.com/images/user/62570dd4ff.jpg
Let’s continue with our look at the alleged palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald’s (LHO) that was claimed to have been found on the alleged murder weapon, CE-139, that had NO connection to LHO! As we saw in the previous post this print allegedly found on CE-139 had NO chain of custody to it.
Lt. Carl Day could NOT show he took it off the rifle at the time of discovery as he FAILED to photograph the print on the rifle before he did an alleged LIFT of the print. I say alleged because the FBI would say they saw “no indication” of a lift being done when they got the rifle in the early hours of 11/23/63.
The FBI’s expert, Sebastian Latona, would also say he had NO firsthand knowledge of LHO’s prints as he NEVER printed him or saw his hands. Thus, he was working with what he was told were LHO’s prints. That is something to keep in mind when you read this and the other claims of prints regarding the alleged bag and boxes.
*******************************************
Lt. Day arrived at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) shortly after the rifle was found allegedly around 1:22 PM (I say allegedly as there is just as good, if not better, evidence that it was found at 1:06 PM). He claimed to process it for fingerprints, but forgot to photograph it BEFORE HE processed it as crime scene procedures call for. In the official theory Lt. Day claimed to have done a lift (the evidence does NOT support the claim of ANY lift having been done) on the metal barrel on the underside of the rifle when he REMOVED the wooden fore-grip.
Sebastian Latona was the FBI expert who viewed the rifle just hours after it was found and he is on record (WC testimony) that he saw NO prints and saw NO indication of a lift having been done. Latona had been at this a long time and had way more experience than Lt. Day and had access to better equipment; and all he said he found were a few unidentifiable ridge formations near the trigger-guard. That is it! He would also say that after viewing the rifle he found there had been NO processing done on it prior to him receiving it. By processing he means dusting for prints and lifts to name a few. Thus, the claims of Lt. Day and the Warren Commission (WC) that this rifle was processed by Lt. Day do NOT hold up.
Latona would also teach classes and Lt. Day would attend some of these, so again, it shows who had much more experience when it comes to these matters. Let’s look at some of Latona’s WC testimony.
Mr. EISENBERG. And could you briefly outline your qualifications as a fingerprint expert?
Mr. LATONA. Well, I have been with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a little more than 32 years. I started in the identification division as a student fingerprint classifier, and since that time I have worked myself up into where I am now supervisor of the latent fingerprint section.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you approximate the number of fingerprint examinations you have made?
Mr. LATONA. Frankly, no. There have been so many in that time that I would not be able to give even a good guess.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would the figure run in the thousands or hundreds?
Mr. LATONA. So far as comparisons are concerned, in the millions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified in court?
Mr. LATONA. I have testified in Federal courts, State courts, commissioners' hearings, military courts, and at deportation proceedings.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask that this witness be accepted as an expert.
The CHAIRMAN. The witness is qualified.
So we see he has been at this for 32 years by 1963/64 and has processed MILLIONS of prints! Can Lt. Day say this? NO. So in any normal trial the weight would be given to Latona’s testimony due to his greater experience. Here is what he said about prints and how they are viewed.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you briefly outline for us the theory of fingerprint identification?
Mr. LATONA. The principle of fingerprint identification is based on the fact primarily that the ridge formations that appear on the hands and on the soles of the feet actually are created approximately 2 to 3 months before birth, on the unborn child, and they remain constant in the same position in which they are formed until the person is dead and the body is consumed by decomposition.
Secondly, the fact that no two people, or no two fingers of the same person, have the same arrangement of these ridge formations, either on the fingers, the palms, or the soles and toes of the feet. Plus the fact that during the lifetime of a person this ridge formation does not change, it remains constant--from the time it is formed until actual destruction, either caused by voluntary or involuntary means, or upon the death of the body and decomposition.
This shows IF LHO’s prints were on the rifle then Lt. Day should have been able to ID them as “NO two people…have the same arrangement of these ridge formations…”, but we saw he could NOT ID either the prints near the trigger guard or the alleged palm print! How come?
Now, here is the testimony pertaining to the alleged murder weapon (CE-139).
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, I hand you Commission Exhibit 139 which, for the record, consists of the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD building, and which ,was identified yesterday as the rifle and the day before yesterday--as the rifle which fired the fatal bullets, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this weapon?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. And did you examine this weapon to test--did you examine this weapon to determine whether there were any identifiable latent fingerprints on it?
Mr. LATONA. I examined the weapon to determine whether there were any identifiable latent prints on the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive the weapon?
Mr. LATONA. On the morning of November 23, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you proceed to make your examination?
Mr. LATONA. I proceeded to make my examination that same day that I received it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us what techniques you used?
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. 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 Dallas Police Department (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. Remember this for later!
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 D.A. Henry Wade did NOT mention fingerprints at this point, huh? What to do, what to do? Oh, that is right, we got a “palm print” for you to study a WHOLE WEEK after the assassination!
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.
Why was Latona given the palm print on 11/29/63 INSTEAD of 11/23/63 you may ask? You can deduce this for yourselves. Here he describes what a lift is for us.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you describe to us what a lift is?
Mr. LATONA. A lift is merely a piece of adhesive material which is used for purposes of removing a print that has been previously developed on an object, onto the adhesive material. Then the adhesive material is placed on a hacking, in this case which happens to be the card. The adhesive material utilized here is similar to scotch tape. There are different types of lifting material. Some of them are known as opaque lifters, which are made of rubber, like a black rubber and white rubber, which has an adhesive material affixed to it, and this material is simply laid on a print which has been previously developed on an object and the full print is merely removed from the object.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "the print" is removed, actually the powder----
Mr. LATONA. The powder that adhered to the original latent print is picked off of the object.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that the impression actually is removed?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Representative FORD. Is that a recognized technique?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; it is.
Representative FORD. In the fingerprinting business?
Mr. LATONA. It is very common, one of the most common methods of recording latent prints.
We see here Latona says that the recognized fact is that the print WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE OBJECT when a lift is done, but Lt. Day opts to NOT photograph the print FIRST! Then, he will say he can still see it AFTER the lift to cover for the fact he should have known the print would be gone after the lift. Did he photograph the print after the lift when he could still see it? NO. So he FAILED to photograph the print on the rifle at any time. Why? So we are just supposed to take his word for it when he REFUSED to sign a document saying how he found it and what he did with it for the FBI? Please.
An interesting side note involves the clip. When a rifle is processed it is taken apart (I mean that is how he supposedly saw the palm print, right?) and as safety feature the ammo and clip (if one is present) are removed, but again in this case this did NOT happen as NO mention of a clip is ever found. NO photos of the clip inside the rifle (remember, the WC claimed it was “jammed” in there) were ever made either. There is NOT one piece of evidence that shows a clip was ever used on 11/22/63 as one was NOT even found in the alleged SN based on the evidence. The ONLY thing we have is a photo taken at least 30 minutes LATER showing one hanging out (I thought it was “jammed”?) as the rifle is taken out of the TSBD.
Mr. EISENBERG. Who did you get this exhibit, this lift from?
Mr. LATONA. This lift was referred to us by the FBI Dallas office.
Mr. EISENBERG. And were you told anything about its origin?
Mr. LATONA. We were advised that this print had been developed by the Dallas Police Department, and, as the lift itself indicates, from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, may I say for the record that at a subsequent point we will have the testimony of the police officer of the Dallas police who developed this print, and made the lift; and I believe that the print was taken from underneath the portion of the barrel which is covered by the stock. Now, did you attempt to identify this print which shows on the lift Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you succeed in making identification?
Mr. LATONA. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.
Mr. EISENBERG. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
BUT, remember what he said earlier, HE ONLY KNEW WHAT HE WAS TOLD. The card said it was LHO’s prints and that is what he went with. I don’t need to play the “planted” game as LNers like to accuse the CTters of since NO chain of custody exists for this alleged palm print, but it needs to still be pointed out that Latona said he had NO DIRECT knowledge of what LHO’s prints looked like since he NEVER printed him or looked at his hands. That is key to remember.
Speaking of lucky!
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle, but several days later by virtue of the receipt of this lift, which did not come with the weapon originally, the FBI did succeed in identifying a print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
How lucky for the DPD, FBI and WC that a palm print suddenly showed up then, huh?
Mr. EISENBERG. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?
Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.
Mr. DULLES. Do I understand then that if there is a lifting of this kind, that it may obliterate----
Mr. LATONA. Completely.
Mr. DULLES. The original print?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
But wait! Didn’t Lt. Day claim he could still see the print AFTER the lift? I think so.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
How can this be? It can’t. Why would Lt. Day lie under oath? I will let you decide why for yourself, but it is obvious he did. Here is the confusion regarding the lift in a nutshell and 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 (or after when he claimed to see the print still), thus, he violated all crime scene procedures by ignoring this key piece of the evidence gathering phase. There was NO way to show the print was ever on the rifle, and of course many researchers have come to the conclusion that one never was that belonged to LHO. There is NO other explanation for Lt. Day’s shoddy work IMO. This says it all to me.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that you personally, Mr. Latona, did not know anything about a print being on the rifle which was identifiable until you received, actually received the lift, Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. On the 29th of November.
Mr. EISENBERG. Seven days after the assassination. And in the intervening period, correspondingly, the FBI had no such knowledge?
Mr. LATONA. As far as I know.
Wow! How do you think this would have played in a courtroom? No wonder he had to be gotten rid of before any trial could take place, huh? Even this part boggles the mind in terms of making sense!
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you tell us what portion of the palm of Lee Harvey Oswald you identified that print as being?
Mr. LATONA. Yes. Here again I have a photograph that will show the approximate area involved, which is on the ulnar side of the lower portion of the palm.
Mr. EISENBERG. The ulnar----
Mr. LATONA. Down near the base of the palm toward the wrist.
Mr. EISENBERG. This is the right palm?
Mr. LATONA. The right palm.
Mr. EISENBERG. As it was in the case of the paper bag, Exhibit 142?
Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.
What are the odds of him touching the bag and the rifle IN THE EXACT SAME WAY? I would think pretty astronomical myself, but that is what was seen. To me this shows his prints were planted as NO one touches objects in the EXACT SAME way all the time.
Look at this excuse for why NO prints were on the gun.
Representative BOGGS. May I ask another question in this connection. A weapon of this type, in your examination do you find a lot of other prints on it as well? You do not?
Mr. LATONA. No. First of all the weapon itself is a cheap one as you can see. It is one that----
Representative BOGGS. Is what?
Mr. LATONA. A cheap old weapon. The wood is to the point where it won't take a good print to begin with hardly. The metal isn't of the best, and not readily susceptible to a latent print.
And yet, THE PALM PRINT WAS THERE TO FIND! Can anyone say LUCKY again? Based on this comment, how in the world did the palm print adhere to the barrel?
Boggs was thorough though. He kept asking about the cops picking up the weapon and leaving prints though, so obviously even he did NOT buy what Latona was saying, otherwise, why keep asking questions like this?
Representative BOGGS. What I am trying to determine is, the average police officer when he would pick up a weapon of that kind would take steps to secure whatever prints might be on that and also prevent the addition of prints, is that right?
--------------
Representative BOGGS. I mean this is part of his training, isn't it?
Who cares since Latona said NO print would adhere to that “cheap, old rifle” anyway except for the MAGIC PALM PRINT of course?
Finally, the WC asks a great question!
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, just to elaborate on some questions which Mr. Boggs was asking earlier, Mr. Latona, referring specifically to this weapon, do you believe that a determination could have been made as to the age of the print found on the weapon which you have identified as being Oswald's print, and a lift of which is Exhibit No. 637?
Mr. LATONA. No; I don't.
Mr. EISENBERG. You don't?
Mr. LATONA. No; I don't.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are experts unanimous in this opinion?
Mr. LATONA. No; they are not. There are some experts who contend that they can determine from the way the print develops, and they will use the term "fresh." Now, on the other hand, so far as the definition of "fresh," then it resolves itself into an hour, a day, a week, a month. What is "fresh" as aside from an "old" one? And my opinion simply is this. That on the basis of the print itself, on the basis of the print itself I cannot determine how old it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. At least specifically on this type, or in particular focusing on this type of weapon?
Mr. LATONA. Particularly on that weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
WITHOUT being able to determine how old the print was (and again, he never printed or saw LHO’s hands for himself and he got the print on a CARD not from the rifle himself) there is NO way to show LHO would have left it on 11/22/63 as claimed! He could have touched the rifle weeks before for all we know.
Once again, the WC is sunk in it’s claim. Here is a recap of what we have discussed:
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. (IV, p. 24)
What do you think of the alleged palm print now?