The Fingerprints of Myth
Questions Regarding the Fingerprint Evidence Linking Lee Harvey Oswald to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
Some basic questions about the Dallas Police’s treatment of the crime scene
Why did Lt. Day give the press a tour of the sixth floor...
At left and above: three photos of Dallas crime scene specialist J.C. Day pointing out the location of the assassination rifle. These were taken by William Allen of the Dallas-Times Herald on 11-22-63. At right: a similar photo taken by Jack Beers of the Dallas Morning News.
of the school book depository, including the sniper’s nest...
Above: a photo taken by Jack Beers on the afternoon of 11-22-63. It shows a number of newsman staring out the sniper’s nest window. Note that the bald head of Lt. J.C. Day is apparent above the highest stack of boxes by the window. Why did Day give these men a tour of the crime scene...before it had been thoroughly processed and photographed?
Above: a crop from the photo at left.
Below: a William Allen photo of Day.
and then lie about it to the Warren Commission?
Jack Beers’ Spring 1964 recollections for the Dallas Morning News, published in 2013 as part
Of JFK Assassination: The Reporter’s Notes: (When Lt. Day returned to the building after taking the rifle to the crime lab) “we were then told we could come in the building. Lt. Day then escorted us to the sixth floor where he pointed out where the gun was found then across the building we went to be shown the nest the assassin had built out of boxed schoolbooks to conceal himself while he lay in wait...”
The 4-22-64 testimony of Lt. J.C. DAY: After I returned to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository after delivering the gun to my office, we processed the boxes in that area, in the area of the window where the shooting apparently occurred.
1:00 PM 10 degrees �1:15 PM 15 degrees �1:31 PM 20 degrees �1:49 PM 25 degrees �2:09 PM 30 degrees �2:31 PM 35 degrees �2:53 PM 40 degrees �3:16 PM 45 degrees �3:40 PM 50 degrees �4:09 PM 55 degrees �4:40 PM 60 degrees �5:02 PM 61 degrees �5:26 PM sunset
At left: a chart created by Jerry Dealy, reflecting the angle of the sun across the front of the book depository on 11-22.
At right, a Jack Beers photo
of the sniper’s nest from 11-22-63. Note the angle of the sun across the bricks. This photo was taken around 3:30.
Was it to hide that he’d left the largely inexperienced Robert Studebaker in charge of the crime scene? For over an hour?
At left:
Studebaker and Day in the Alyea film.
At right: Studebaker at work in the sniper’s nest.
All in a Day’s work: a timeline of Lt. Day’s 11-22-63 activities
Arrives at TSBD: 1:12 (Day)
Climbs stairs to sixth floor (Day)
Photographs hulls and gives them to Sims: 1:16—1:23 (Day)
Rifle discovered: 1:22 (Boone)
Photographs and works on rifle: 1:23 until he leaves (Day)
Leaves before Fritz (Day), Fritz leaves around 2:00 (VB)
Returns to TSBD: 3:00 (Day)
Returns to crime lab: 6:00 (Day)
Below: Lt. Day’s first inspection of the rifle found in the building, as captured in the Alyea film.
Or was there more to it than that?
Questions about Box D
21WH647
These are all the same photo, taken on 11-25-63,
after the cardboard corner tore from the box on 11-22-63 was placed back on the box. Note that the two prints at right, which were published by the Warren Commission, conceal this fact.
Why is there no evidence photo of Box D from 11-22?
The photo at left is a recently-surfaced photo of the sixth floor sniper’s nest taken by Life Magazine photographer Flip Schulke on the afternoon of 11-22-63. It is, apparently, the only photo taken on that day—by the Dallas Police or press—which shows Box D, the box upon which Oswald purportedly sat—and left his palm print--during the assassination.
11/24/63 Dallas, [11/23] - The police also found three shells and an unspent bullet, a soft-drink bottle, an empty cigarette package, a piece of partly-eaten fried chicken, and a sack with chicken bones.
Chief Curry said a palm print on a cardboard box at the window checked with prints of Oswald's palm taken later at police headquarters. New York Times, Donald Janson
And where, if the palm print was ID’ed as Oswald’s on the 22nd...
is the DPD or FBI report saying as much?
I mean, really, the earliest mention of this print in a DPD or FBI report or inventory comes on the 26th, when the DPD sent the print to Washington along with much of the other evidence... Did the DPD hold it back from the FBI for a reason? Was it just not “ready”?
The 4-22-64 Testimony of Chief Dallas Crime Scene Investigator Lt. J.C. Day
Mr. BELIN. Could you relate what transpired to cause 649 to be torn from 648?
Mr. DAY. After I returned to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository after delivering the gun to my office, we processed the boxes in that area, in the area of the window where the shooting apparently occurred, with powder. This particular box was processed and a palmprint, a legible palmprint, developed on the northwest corner of the box, on the top of the box as it was sitting on the floor.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do when you developed this print?
Mr. DAY. I placed a piece of transparent tape, ordinary Scotch tape, which we use for fingerprint work, over the developed palmprint.
Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do?
Mr. DAY. I tore the cardboard from the box that contained the palmprint.
And why did Lt. Day claim he’d processed the print on Box D
and took the palmprint to the crime lab...
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. DAY. The box was left in its position, but the palmprint was taken by me to the identification bureau.
Mr. BELIN. Did you make any identification of it?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Later that night when I had a chance to get palmprints from Lee Harvey Oswald. I made a comparison with the palmprint off of the box, your 729, and determined that the palmprint on the box was made by the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald.
The 4-6-64 testimony of Robert Studebaker
Mr. STUDEBAKER. ...I was standing right there and I told Johnson and Montgomery that there should be a print, and I turned around and figured he might have been standing right in there, and I dusted all these poles here and there wasn't no prints on any of it and started dusting this big box, No. 1 here, and lifted the print off of that box.
Mr. BALL. Did you later examine that print that you lifted off of that box in your crime lab?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I was up in that building until 1 o'clock that morning and got there at 1 and left at 1 and they had seized all of our evidence and I haven't seen it since. Lieutenant Day compared the print before it was released to Oswald's print.
Mr. BALL. He did?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. He compared it as Oswald's right palm print.
Mr. BALL. Did you put some masking tape over that bit of cardboard before you moved it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. As soon as the print was lifted, you see, I taped it and then they took the print down there. They just took the top corner of this box down there.
Mr. BALL. They just took the top part of the box down there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, and when we took this picture, we took it back - that stuff has been up there and back until I was so confused I don't know what was going on.
Mr. BALL. You mean, when you took the picture which is marked Exhibit J -
...when Studebaker had already claimed he’d processed the print, and given the print to Johnson and Montgomery?
And why is the DPD’s photo of the box print undated, and not listed on the DPD’s Inventory of Photographic Images, describing 69 evidence photos taken by the DPD?
DPD photo 91-001/128,
presumably taken 11-22
And why is the DPD’s photo of the box print so over-exposed compared to the FBI’s photo?
CE 651, an FBI photo taken for Sebastian Latona a week or more later
DPD photo 91-001/128,
presumably taken 11-22
And why did Day lie about signing the box bottom on 11-22?
At right: a crop from CE 729, a photo taken on 11-25. This proves that Day’s writing was added to CE 649 after 11-25.
At left: CE 649, showing the writing of Studebaker and Day.
Mr. BELIN. Did you make any identification on Exhibit 649 which would indicate that this is the palmprint you took?
Mr. DAY. It has in my writing, "From top of box Oswald apparently sat on to fire gun. Lieut. J. C. Day," and it is marked "right palm of Oswald. Lieut. J. C. Day.” There is also an arrow indicating north and where the palmprint was found. It further has Detective Studebaker's name on it, and he also wrote on there, "From top of box subject sat on."
Mr. BELIN. Now, when was that placed on that exhibit, that writing of yours, when was it placed on there?
Mr. DAY. It was placed on there November 22, 1963.
And why is the heel of Oswald’s right palm missing from the box print?
Note the unique pattern on Oswald’s palm missing from the box print.
The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 650, for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take a photograph of the known palmprint and make a red circle around it, as you had in previous cases?
Mr. LATONA. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. To show what portion of the palm of Oswald that was?
Mr. LATONA. Showing a portion of the right palm.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have that admitted?
Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted as 651.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 651, and received in evidence.)
And why did the FBI’s Sebastian Latona indicate the heel was apparent on the print, then back off?
CE650
CE 651
Above: a page from a notebook in the the DPD’s assassination files now available on the University of North Texas website. Note that this list claims Oswald’s thumb print was found on one of the boxes. Note also that the trigger guard print is described as a partial palm print. This proves that the DPD initially believed the trigger guard print was a palm print, and this, in turn, helps explain Henry Wade’s mention of a palm print when speaking to the press on 11-24-63.
And, uh, what happened to this thumb print?
I mean, really, why did Lt. Day and Capt. Doughty sign an inventory in which they claimed Oswald’s thumb print was found on Box D?
And why did Capt. Will Fritz continue to claim a thumb print had been found on Box D, in addition to the palm print, as late as 12-23-63?
Above: page 1 of Capt. Will Fritz’s 12-23-63 report, and its corresponding evidence list.
Did the FBI “disappear” this print, and fail to get the word back to Fritz?
Questions about the trigger guard
First of all...who took this photo? When?
I found the photo at left online. It shows Lt. Day working on the rifle. If anyone knows who took this picture, and when, and if there were any more in the series, please let me know.
Why did Lt. Day grossly exaggerate the amount of time he’d been working on the rifle prior to his parading it before the press at 6:15 P.M.?
The 4-22-64 testimony of Lt. J.C. Day: I went back to the School Book Depository and stayed there. It was around three that I got back, and I was in that building until about 6... (Elsewhere) “I don't know whether you are interested in this or not, but about, it must have been about 8:30 I was processing the gun on the fourth floor...Of the police department where my office is. The identification bureau. And Captain Fritz came up and said he had Mrs. Oswald in his office on the third floor...He wanted her to look at the gun to see if she could identify it...I explained to him that I was still working with the prints, but I thought I could carry it down without disturbing the prints, which I did. We waded through the mob with me holding the gun up high. No one touched it.”
Wait, was Day preparing a lift from the right trigger guard?
And, if so, why was he preparing this lift before processing
the left trigger guard?
Right
Left
And what happened to the print on the right trigger guard?
Although DPD photos and press photos from 11-22-63 suggest a print was found on the rifle’s right trigger guard, and then taped off by Lt. Day, there are no photos or lifts of this print in the record. No explanation for this oddity has ever been offered.
And to the DPD’s photos of the left trigger guard?
While five photos of the left trigger guard from the collection of DPD officer Rusty Livingston were reproduced in the book First Day Evidence, only one of these photos remains in the Dallas JFK archives.
And why, if the prints on the left trigger guard were of no value...
The 4-2-64 testimony of Sebastian Latona:
Mr. LATONA. There had, in addition to this rifle and that paper bag, which I received on the 23d--there had also been submitted to me some photographs which had been taken by the Dallas Police Department, at least alleged to have been taken by them, of these prints on this trigger guard which they developed. I examined the photographs very closely and I still could not determine any latent value in the photograph. So then I took the rifle personally over to our photo laboratory. In the meantime, I had made arrangements to bring a photographer in especially for the purpose of photographing these latent prints for me, an experienced photographer--I called him in. I received this material in the Justice Building office of operations is in the Identification Division Building, which is at 2d and D Streets SW. So I made arrangements to immediately have a photographer come in and see if he could improve on the photographs that were taken by the Dallas Police Department. Well, we spent, between the two of us, setting up the camera, looking at prints, highlighting, sidelighting, every type of lighting that we could conceivably think of, checking back and forth in the darkroom--we could not improve the condition of these latent prints. So, accordingly, the final conclusion was simply that the latent print on this gun was of no value, the fragments that were there. After that had been determined, I then proceeded to completely process the entire rifle, to see if there were any other prints of any significance or value any prints of value--I would not know what the significance would be, but to see if there were any other prints. I completely covered the rifle.
...did the FBI acquire the negatives to the DPD’s photographs of the left trigger guard?
Note again that Day, by 11-26-63, is still not sure if the print
is a palm print or a fingerprint.
And what happened to the FBI’s own photos of these prints?
When one compares the trigger guard photos published by the Warren Commission (CE 721, at left) and those found in the Dallas Archives (at right), it becomes clear that the Warren Commission used blurry copies provided by the DPD. Seeing as the FBI took its own photos of the prints, and was responsible for the bulk of the commission’s exhibits, this remains a mystery.
And if this is a match, where’s Scalice’s Chart?
In 1993, fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalice claimed Oswald’s right middle finger and ring finger matched the trigger guard prints. But he never published a chart demonstrating as much.
And why, if Scalice was correct, were right fingerprints on the left trigger guard...
with the ring finger stretched forward of the middle finger?
Questions about the paper bag
Why is there no evidence photo of the paper bag from 11-22?
At left: Warren Commission Exhibit 1302. This photo was taken during an 11-25-63 re-creation of the sixth floor sniper’s nest, presented to show the location of the palm print on Box D (the arrow), as well as the location of the paper bag purportedly used by Oswald to transport his rifle to work. (Note that the top side of Box D has been altered to hide that the cardboard bearing the print had been torn from the box.)
Note that these two objects held the only three prints linking Oswald to the crime scene prior to his murder on 11-24-63, and that neither of these objects were photographed at the crime scene by the police prior to his murder.
Why couldn’t Montgomery remember where he found it?
Montgomery’s report on his activities (CE 2003, p223): “I found a long brown paper sack... It was beneath and to the left of the window where the shooting took place.
Warren Commission counsel Burt Griffin’s notes on a 3-24-64 interview of Montgomery: “Montgomery states... that a brown paper bag was folded in half and sitting on the box.
The 4-6-64 Warren Commission testimony of L.D. Montgomery: “Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was.” (When told there are no pictures of the sack in the building.) “Well, it was there--I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there.
Interview in No More Silence, published 1998 : “I don't remember exactly where I found the brown paper that Oswald had wrapped the rifle in...I recall that it was stuffed between the boxes, not lying out open on the floor as were the shell casings.”
11-5-02 oral history for the Sixth Floor Museum: “I found a piece of big, brown paper there... just a little bit away from that wall over there. Around some boxes. I found it over there not far from where he was sitting, over there in-between some boxes...there was a lot of stacks of boxes up there...And it was in-between some stacks of boxes right back behind us. No, it wasn't in the corner. It was right there...just right behind where he was sitting...that's where I found it--back behind him."
And why did Capt. Fritz deny seeing the bag?
In this image from the Alyea film, Capt. Will Fritz is standing in the sniper’s nest, just a few feet away from the pipe where a large bag was later claimed to have been sitting on the floor. And yet, Fritz, and most all those viewing the sniper’s nest prior to the arrival of Lt. Day, said he neither saw nor recalled discussion of the bag, and that the bag was discovered after he’d left the building.
And why did Warren Commission attorney David Belin end up recruiting motorcycle cops to say they saw the bag?
At left: a 3-24-64 witness list found in the files of Warren Commission attorney Howard Willens. It proves that at that time the commission had no plans of calling motorcycle officers Haygood and Brewer to testify. Below: a subsequent David Belin memo summarizing their 4-9-64 testimony.
11-30-63 FBI report on an 11-29-63 interview of Day
"Lt. Carl Day, Dallas Police Department, stated he found the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case near the scene of the shooting on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building.
The 4-22-64 testimony of Lt. J.C. Day
Mr. BELIN. Could you read what you wrote on there?
Mr. DAY. "Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day."
Mr. BELIN. When did you write that?
Mr. DAY. I wrote that at the time the sack was found before it left our possession.
(Later) "I had the bag...On the first floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and I noticed from their wrapping bench there was paper and tape of a similar--the tape was of the same width as this. I took the bag over and tried it, and I noticed that the tape was the same width as on the bag."
And why did Lt. Day pretend he discovered, signed and handled the bag upon its first discovery...
and then left it with his assistants...
(Still later) “I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left. I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in.”�
...when he knew full well it had been paraded out by Montgomery and Johnson...while he was away?
Note: the photo at left captures Det. L.D. Montgomery—one of the “guards” described by Day--as he leaves the depository with the paper bag. The insert above depicts his wristwatch. Note that it reads 3:00, the time Day said he’d returned to the building. Well, this suggests that Day never saw the bag in the building.
7-11-06 oral history for The Sixth Floor Museum:, (As to why he didn’t get a photo of the bag in the corner) "They had posted guards or something around it and they didn't have the sense to leave things alone. And they'd got in there and picked up a sack that was in this corner. And we didn't get a picture of it. But there was a sack right in that corner...the brown paper bag. It was the one he was supposed to have brought curtain rods in. Well, they picked it up while I was gone, and I didn't get a picture of it while it was sitting there."
And why did the DPD’s reports suggest the bag was found before they knew Oswald had been carrying a bag...
Timeline for the discovery of the bag
The story: the police discovered the bag before they know Oswald had been carrying one.
The truth: the police knew Oswald had been carrying a bag before its “discovery”.
...when the reverse was true?
And why did the bag change so much in appearance...
At left: a photo by William Allen showing L.D. Montgomery’s removal of a bag from the building. Above: Photo 4 from the FBI’s initial report on the shooting, purported to show this same bag, after being split open and exposed to silver nitrate.
...and even in proportions...
These five photos of the paper bag and Det. Montgomery outside the Texas School Book Depository Building on 11-22-63 suggest the bag was as wide as a grocery sack.
And yet, the Warren Commission’s exhibits suggested the bag was but 8 ½ inches wide, the width of...
standard printer paper... As shown at left, I simulated a bag using 8 ½’ paper to see how this compared to the press photos. Hmmm...
...from when it was taken out of the building until it was photographed by the FBI?
Was it a different bag entirely?
Or was it simply re-folded so that it would be more in line with the 6” wide bag described by Buell Frazier....
Note: the bags in these three photos have been matched up by the width of the tape.
I mean, really, where in the heck did this fold come from?
11-22, outside TSBD
11-23, or a few days later,
inside the FBI’s crime lab
And why weren’t Montgomery, Johnson, or Studebaker ever asked to identify their initials on the bag?
Photo 6 in the FBI’s initial report (CD1) shows the initials of L.D. Montgomery, Marvin Johnson, and Robert Studebaker beside the palmprint on the bag. They claimed they discovered the bag, and signed it afterwards. So why were they never asked to identify their initials?
And where were those initials, anyhow?
Since the white diamond on the bag is purportedly adjacent to the location of the palm print, and the palm print is adjacent to the initials apparent on the FBI’s evidence photo, the initials should be apparent on the photo above, taken by William Allen as the bag left the building.
Okay, let’s assume the bag in the archives is THE bag. And let’s assume this is
a match.
Well, then, the palm lines up with the FBI photo like this...
and lines up with the bag like this...
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you show how the palm lay on the paper to produce that impression?
Mr. LATONA. The palm lay in this fashion here.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are putting your right hand on the paper so that the fingers are pointing in the same direction as the arrow A?
Mr. LATONA. That's right.
Mr. EISENBERG. And it is at approximately right angles to the paper bag?
Mr. LATONA. That's right.
Well, this means the FBI’s Latona lied about the orientation of the palm on the bag.
Well, what about that left index finger, then?
FBI Report 12-9-63
CE 633 Latona 4-2-64
CE 659b Mandella 4-2-64
Its placement on the bag makes sense...
But how does this? Match up with this?
And if
this edge
is actually just a fold...?
Well, then, why did Latona crop it off his exhibits showing the location of the print on the bag?
At left: CE 633 a Latona exhibit, in sepia, presented atop CE 659b, a Mandella exhibit, in grayscale.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you show us that chart and discuss with us some of the similar characteristics which you found in the inked and latent print which led you to the conclusion that they were identical?
Mr. LATONA. Yes. I have here what are referred to as two charted enlargements. One of the enlargements, which is marked "Inked Left Index Fingerprint. Lee Harvey Oswald" is approximately a 10-time enlargement of the fingerprint which appears on Exhibit 633A. The other enlargement, which is marked "Latent Fingerprint on Brown Homemade Paper Container," is approximately a 10-time enlargement of the latent fingerprint which was developed on the brown wrapping paper indicated by the red arrow, "B."
Mr. EISENBERG. And that also corresponds to the photograph you gave us, which is now Exhibit 633?
Mr. LATONA. That's correct.
Representative FORD. And the arrow, "B," is on Exhibit 626?
Mr. LATONA. That's correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Having reference to the paper bag, Exhibit 626, Mr. Latona, could you show us where on that bag this portion of the palm, the ulnar portion of the palm, of Lee Harvey Oswald was found?
Mr. LATONA. This little red arrow which I have placed on the paper bag shows the palmprint as it was developed on the wrapper.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it visible to the naked eye?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; it is. I think you can see it with the use of this hand magnifier.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you mark that arrow "A"--the arrow you have Just referred to on Exhibit 626, pointing to the portion of the palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald?
But wait, what’s this?
Mr. LATONA. Exhibit 632 is approximately a time and a half enlargement of the latent palmprint which was developed on the brown wrapper.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is Exhibit 142.
Mr. LATONA. Exhibit 142--which is indicated by the red arrow A.
And this?
Mr. MURRAY. May I say for the. record, Mr. Chairman, that I definitely and clearly saw what appeared to me to be a palmprint in the port of Exhibit 142 which was designated with a "B," and less clearly, but nevertheless I did see, the fingerprint on the other portion of the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona----
Mr. LATONA. "B" is the finger, and "A" is the palm.
Mr. MURRAY. Yes; that's correct. And the palm "A"--there I definitely saw what appeared. to be a palmprint, and more faintly I saw a fingerprint in the portion marked "B."
Mr. DULLES. And these are exhibits----
Mr. EISENBERG. This is Exhibit 142.
(At this point Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)
Mr. DULLES. Both the palmprint and the fingerprint are on Exhibit 142.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes--marked "A" and "B" respectively.
Mr. LATONA. The opinion here, without any question at all, is that this latent print, which was developed on the brown bag marked "A"--142 was made by the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Well, heck, this makes it clear that A is the palmprint...
and that the palmprint is at the middle of the bag...
and that it is the fingerprint, B, that is down at the bottom of the bag.....
And this suggests the prints aligned like this...
So why did the Warren Report make out that the palm print was on the bottom of the bag?
WR135
Note: footnote 187 refers to both the 4-2-64 testimony of Sebastian Latona, in which he specified that print A (the print at the middle of the bag) was the palmprint, and the testimony of Buell Frazier, who said both that the bag appeared far too large to have been the bag he saw Oswald carry into the depository on the day of the shooting, and that Oswald carried the bottom of this bag with his right hand. By inaccurately claiming the palmprint was found on the bottom of the bag, the Warren Report created the illusion the print confirmed Frazier’s testimony, and that Frazier was simply wrong about the size of the bag. It’s hard to believe this was a coincidence.
And why didn’t the FBI mark the location of the palmprint before returning the bag to the Dallas Police?
11-26 Dallas Police photo
showing the bag as it appeared
after its 11-24 return to Dallas
Some more basic questions about the investigation
Why were so many sets of fingerprints created?
Hicks
11-22
Knight
11-23
Knight
11-23
???
11-25
Three undated
inkless sets by Hicks.
11-23
Knight
11-22
Hicks
And what happened to them?
11-22
Hicks, but also signed by Day
11-23
Knight
11-22
Hicks, also
signed by Day
11-22, Barnes... If this is the Hicks and Day print from right, where is their writing?
11-22,
Hicks
All of them?
I repeat, all of them?
Why wasn’t the lunch bag sent to the FBI for processing?
Why did Day and Drain tell the same story about the timing of the evidence transfer?
Dallas crime lab chief Lt. J.C. Day and FBI Special Agent Vincent Drain agreed that the
evidence sent to the FBI’s crime lab on the night of the assassination was transferred from the DPD to the FBI between 11:30 and 11:45, before Oswald made his appearance in the “midnight press conference.” So why was Oswald still wearing his shirt, not only at the press conference, but when fingerprinted afterwards, around 12:45 AM?
And why were the shirt fibers found on the rifle butt found on top of fingerprint powder?
The 4-3-64 testimony of FBI fiber analyst Paul Stombaugh: “Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun: it was pretty well dusted off, and at the time I noted to myself that I doubted very much if there would be any fibers adhering to the outside of the gun—I possibly might find some in a crevice some place— because when the latent fingerprint man dusted this gun, apparently in Dallas, they use a little brush to dust with, they would have dusted any fibers off the gun at the same time; so this I noted before I ever started to really examine the gun.”
He explained further: “ordinarily a fiber would adhere pretty well, unless you take a brush and brush it off on the floor and it is lost.”
He then described his inspection of the rifle on the morning of the 23rd: "I noted it had been dusted for latent prints. So I proceeded to pick off what fibers were left from the small crevices and small grease deposits which were left on the gun. At the point of the butt plate, the end of the stock…I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed.”
When then asked what led him to believe the fibers were folded into the crevice by the dusting, he then explained: ”Because of the presence of fingerprint powder being down in and through the crevice here. It looked as if it had been dusted with a brush. You could make out the bristlemarks of the brush itself.”
And, come to think of it, why did the Dallas Police fail to make a list of the evidence sent the FBI on the 22nd?
From The Departmental Manual of Operating Procedures for the Dallas Police Department (Warren Commission Document 1285).�(p.201) Daily Activity Report (Crime Scene Search Section) �Prepared by Stenographer 4�Submitted to Deputy Chief Service Division�When Submitted Daily by 9 AM�Original to Deputy Chief, Copy retained by section�Purpose: to inform the Deputy Chief of the daily activities of the Crime Scene Search Section��Explanation: EACH member of the Crime Scene Search Section completes a call sheet regarding EACH investigation made in duplicate. The original is retained to compile the Daily Activity Report and to be filed in the jacket assigned to that investigation. The duplicate is sent to the Bureau requesting the investigation.�� (p.202) Explanation: The stenographer-4 of the Crime Scene Search Section compiles the information from the Daily Activity Reports and submits the report to the Captain of Identification Bureau to be attached to the Monthly Activity Report of the Fingerprint Section. The Lieutenant of the Fingerprint Section prepares a Monthly Activity Report from the daily activities of the Section.��Note: the earliest report by the Crime Scene Search Section provided the Warren Commission is a 1-8-64 summary of activities regarding the assassination written by Lt. J.C. Day. This was written more than six weeks after the assassination!
And, oh yeah, what happened to Lt. Day’s reports?
Questions about the barrel lift
Above: Lt. Day’s lift of a palm print. While Day claimed he removed this from the rifle barrel, he created no paper trail for this lift. Questions remain. (Scan by John Hunt).
The age-old questions:
Did FBI agent Vincent Drain tell Henry Hurt the truth?
(When asked about Day’s claim he lifted the palm print from the rifle on 11-22-63, and told Drain about this, but that Drain either failed to hear him or forgot about it by the time he reached Washington): “All I can figure is that it was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.” FBI agent Vincent Drain to reporter Henry Hurt, May 1984, as reported in Hurt’s book Reasonable Doubt, published 1985.
Or was he (at least partially) covering for Hoover and Latona?
I mean, if the FBI was totally honest about this, why wasn’t the lift/rifle comparison received in sworn testimony?
At right: the lift/rifle comparison
included in a 9-4-64 letter from
J. Edgar Hoover to the Warren Commission. This comparison was created to answer questions raised by Warren Commission counsel J. Wesley Liebeler, as to whether or not Lt. Day’s lift came from the rifle. The FBI’s comparison yielded a fairly low number of matches—5—and was much too dark to really demonstrate anything.
And yet it was the only piece of evidence offered by the FBI to demonstrate the lift came from the rifle...
No sworn testimony was taken along these lines.
Why was there no print on the rifle from the upper palm?
Note: the palm print is only apparent on the lift below the black line at left
And what’s with the fiber trapped under the lift?
Above: a fiber or hair trapped beneath the tape of the barrel lift. At right: Figure 9 from Pat Wertheim’s 1994 Journal of Forensic Identification article Detection of Forged and Fabricated Latent Prints. It describes how a trapped paper fiber on a lift can be an indication the lift had been lifted from a fingerprint card or paper.
Questions about Box A (and B)
Box A as viewed in an 11-22 sniper’s nest photo of the shells
Box A as viewed today. It appears to have the same
scar as Box A on 11-22.
Where was Box A on 11-23-63?
From CD 5
Note that only 2 of the 3 window boxes are present. Where was Box A?
And why was it “impersonated” in the 11-25 re-enactment photos...
When one looks at the relationship between the stamps on the box tops, it is clear that the Box A currently in the archives, at left, is not the same box as the box presented in the re-enactment photos, at right. Where was the real Box A on 11-25-63?
to the extent, even, that someone tried to fake the “scar”?
11-22
11-25
Today
Mr. BALL. The picture of the boxes; this is after they were moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; they were moved there. This is exactly the position they were in.
Mr. BALL. It is?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes - not - this was after they were moved, but I put them in the same exact position.
Mr. BALL. Were they that close - that was about the position?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Let's take one of these pictures and mark it the next number, which will be "Exhibit J."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit J," for identification)
Mr. BALL. After the boxes of Rolling Readers had been moved, you put them in the same position?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And took a picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And this is Exhibit J, is it, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Exhibit J, yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, the box that had the print on it is shown?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there any other indentation on that box besides that which is shown in the circle on 3?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
And why did Studebaker...
Mr. BELIN. When you came back on the 25th where did you find this box, 641?
Mr. DAY. They were still in the area of the window but had been moved from their original position.
Mr. BELIN. Does that scar appear on the box in 733?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. I see there was one box in the window which you have reconstructed as being box 653, am I correct on that?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. And then there is a box which is stacked on top of another box, the upper box of that two-box stack is 641, is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. And there is a scar on top of that. Is this the same one that you referred to at the top of 641?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
and Day...lie about this?
CE 641
CE 733
Was Studebaker Exhibit J “dirtied” up to hide that the “Box A” in the photo had never been dusted for prints?
From the 4-6-64 testimony of Robert Studebaker, exhibit supplied by Studebaker
From the 4-22-64 testimony of Lt. J.C. Day, exhibit supplied by the FBI from photos sent them by the DPD
Or is it just a coincidence that Box A was missing on 11-23, and impersonated on 11-25, and then found to be the only box bearing Oswald’s prints when tested by the FBI on 11-28?
And how is it that Studebaker signed Box A...
right across the palmprint...
Above: CE 646, a photo of the palm print on Box A, placed atop its location on Box A.
I mean, was it just dumb luck that Studebaker signed Box D, Box A and the paper bag where there just so happened to be a palm print that would later be attributed to Oswald?
And why did the WC misrepresent the palm’s orientation?
At left: Commission Exhibit 1301,
purported to show the original layout of the sniper’s nest, along with the locations of the prints attributed to Oswald
The hand was in the SE corner, facing S, not on the NE corner, facing SW.
CE 1301
And why was Oswald’s right index fingerprint found un-smudged between two Studebaker prints?
CE 644
And, uh, which of these came first?
Photo 27 from the 12-9-63 report of the FBI
And why did it take the FBI 10 months to take elimination prints and establish the identities of the other prints?
By 11-29-63, the FBI knew that but 3 of the 20-plus prints found on the sniper’s nest boxes belonged to Oswald. So why did they fail to take elimination prints of all those with access to the sniper’s nest boxes, in order to establish who was responsible for the rest of the prints?
Wallace Print
Box A Print 29
Or did they? One print attributed by Latona to Studebaker has subsequently been identified as a print belonging to an LBJ crony named Malcolm Wallace...
While this has been disputed by examiners such as Kasey Wertheim...
it seems as much a match to me as the barrel print...
Above: John Hunt’s scan of the lift from rifle barrel
Above: the lift from rifle barrel matched up with the width of the ridges on the Oswald right palm print
Below: Oswald’s right palm print
The arrows point out a shape on the rifle lift that doesn’t match up with the palm print.
Questions about Box B
Why, again, was Studebaker J “dirtied” up?
From the 4-6-64 testimony of Robert Studebaker, exhibit supplied by Studebaker
From the 4-22-64 testimony of Lt. J.C. Day, exhibit supplied by the FBI from photos sent them by the DPD
Was it to hide the writing on Box B?
When one compares a blow up of Box B from Studebaker Exhibit J (at top left) with a blow up of Box B taken from the original photo (above, with the original photo at left), it becomes clear that the box in Studebaker’s print has been altered to appear dirtier, and that this has covered up the small writing on Box B apparent in the original photo.
What did it say, and why was it covered up?
# 18 - PARTIAL PALM - NO VALUE - CHARACTERISTICS INDISTINCT
And why did NYPD Fingerprint expert Arthur Mandella claim a print Latona said could be identified was of “no value”?
And why is this print still unidentified?
And is print 18 actually the unidentified print?
Latona never ID’ed which print was unidentified, beyond that it was a palm print on Box B.
Which reminds me....
Why did the FBI fail to create the exhibits requested by the Warren Commission?
Excerpt from an 8-28-64 FBI memo, Rosen to Belmont
This “chart” was either never created or never turned over to the commission.
Jack Beers
P.S. Could the unidentified print have been Flip Schulke’s?
William Allen
Flip Schulke
When one studies the sniper’s nest photos from 11-22-63, one is struck by an alarming fact. Someone moved the boxes for Flip Schulke’s photos!
George Smith
Jack
Beers