Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions - #42

[Robert Caprio]

[b]Let’s continue with our look at the alleged palm print of LHO’s
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. 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.[/b]

**********************************************


[b]Lt. Day arrived at the 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 claim of
Lt. Day and the 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.[/b]

Mr. EISENBERG. And could you briefly outline [color=blue][b]your
qualifications as a fingerprint expert[/b][/color]?

Mr. LATONA. Well, [color=red][b]I have been with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for a little more than 32 years.[/b][/color] 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. [color=blue][b]Would the figure run in the thousands or
hundreds?[/b][/color]

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][b]So far as comparisons are concerned, [u]in
the millions[/u].[/b][/color]

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, [color=blue][b]I ask that this
witness be accepted as an expert.[/b][/color]

The CHAIRMAN. [color=red][b]The witness is qualified.[/b][/color]

[b]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.[/b]

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, [color=red][b]the fact that no two people[/b][/color], or no
two fingers of the same person, [color=red][b]have the same
arrangement of these ridge formations, either on the fingers, the
palms, or the soles and toes of the feet.[/b][/color] 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.


[b]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).[/b]

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, [color=blue][b]I hand you Commission
Exhibit 139[/b][/color] 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.[color=blue][b] Who placed the cellophane material there,
in your opinion?[/b][/color]

Mr. LATONA. Well, [color=red][b]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,[/b][/color] 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. [color=red][b]To protect the prints while the rifle was in
transit to the FBI.[/b][/color]

[b]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?[/b]

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, [color=red][b]the
ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes
of either effecting identification or a determination[/b][/color] that
the print was not identical with the prints of people. [color=red]
[b]Accordingly, my opinion simply was [u]that the latent prints which
were there were of no value[/u].[/b][/color] Now, I did not stop
there.

[b]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.[/b]

Mr. DULLES. [color=blue][b]Is is likely or possible that those
fingerprints could have been damaged or eroded in the passage from
Texas to your hands?[/b][/color]

Mr. LATONA. No, sir ; I don't think so. In fact, [color=red][b]I think
we got the prints just like they were…[/b][/color]

[b]Nice try though, huh? Look at this very interesting comment by
Latona![/b]

Mr. DULLES. The witness has certified to the fact that these are true
photographs of the prints that we have seen.

Representative BOGGS. [color=blue][b]And the witness has also
certified that those are Oswald's prints?[/b][/color]

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][b]No; I cannot certify to that.[/b][/color]

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you want to explain that?

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][b]As I am not the one that fingerprinted
Oswald, [u]I cannot tell from my own personal knowledge that those are
actually the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald[/u].[/b][/color]

[b]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![/b]

Mr. EISENBERG. But [color=blue][b]you can certify that those prints
are identical with the prints on the card which bears the name of Lee
Harvey Oswald[/b][/color] which was furnished to you?

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][b]That is right.[/b][/color]

[b]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.[/b]

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. [color=blue][b]Did you develop any fingerprints?[/b][/
color]

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][b]I was not successful in developing any
prints at all on the weapon.[/b][/color] I also had one of the
firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete
weapon, all parts, everything else. [color=red][b]And no latent prints
of value were developed.[/b][/color]

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip?

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][u][b]That included the clip, that included the
bolt, it included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the
stock.[/b][/u][/color]

Mr. EISENBERG. Were cartridge cases furnished to you at that time?

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][b]They were, which I processed, and [u]from
which I got no prints[/u].
[/b][/color]
Mr. EISENBERG. [color=blue][u][b]Therefore, the net result of your
work on Exhibit 139 was that you could not produce an identifiable
print?[/b][/u][/color]

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][b]That's correct.[/b][/color]

[b]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![/b]

Mr. EISENBERG. [color=blue][u]So as of November 23, you had not found
an identifiable print on Exhibit 139?[/u][/color]

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][u][b]That is right.[/b][/u][/color]

[b]Panic alarms must have been going off at this point. No wonder
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![/b]

Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain
initials and with a date, "11-22-63." [color=blue][b]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.[/b][/color] 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. [color=red][b]This exhibit Or this item is a lift of a
latent palmprint [/b][/color]which was evidently developed with black
powder.

Mr. EISENBERG. [color=blue][b]And when did you receive this item?[/b][/
color]

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][u][b]I received this item November 29, 1963.[/
b][/u][/color]

[b]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.[/b]

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you describe to us what a lift is?

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][b]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.[/b][/
color] 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. [color=blue]So that the impression actually is removed?
[/color]

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][b]That is right.[/b][/color]

Representative FORD. Is that a recognized technique?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; it is.

Representative FORD. [color=red][b]In the fingerprinting business?[/b]
[/color]

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][b]It is very common, one of the most common
methods of recording latent prints.[/b][/color]

[b]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.[/b]

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.[color=blue][b] And were you told anything about its
origin?[/b][/color]

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][b]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.[/b][/color]

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. [color=blue][b]Did you succeed in making identification?
[/b][/color]

Mr. LATONA. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an
identification.

Mr. EISENBERG. [color=blue][b]And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?[/b]
[/color]

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][b]The palmprint which appears on the lift was
identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.[/b][/
color]

[b]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![/b]

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, [color=blue][b]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?[/b][/color]

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][b]That is right.[/b][/color]

[b]How lucky for the DPD, FBI and WC that a palm print suddenly showed
up then, huh?[/b]

Mr. EISENBERG. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently
inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to
an identification?

Mr. LATONA. [color=red]We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint
having been developed on the rifle. [/color]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,
[color=red][u][b]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.[/b][/u][/color]

Mr. DULLES. Do I understand then that if there is a lifting of this
kind, [color=blue][b]that it may obliterate[/b][/color]----

Mr. LATONA. Completely.

Mr. DULLES. [color=blue][b]The original print?[/b][/color]

Mr. LATONA. [color=red]That is right.[/color]

[b]But wait! Didn’t Lt. Day claim he could still see the print AFTER
the lift? I think so.[/b]

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.[color=red][b] I dusted these and
tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner.
A faint palmprint came off. [u]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. [/u][/b][/color]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.

[b]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.[/b]

Mr. EISENBERG. [color=blue][b]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?[/b][/color]

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][u][b]On the 29th of November.[/b][/u][/color]

Mr. EISENBERG. Seven days after the assassination. And in the
intervening period, correspondingly, [color=red][b]the FBI had no such
knowledge?[/b][/color]

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][b]As far as I know.[/b][/color]

[b]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![/b]

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. [color=blue][b]This is the right palm?[/b][/color]

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][b]The right palm.[/b][/color]

Mr. EISENBERG. [color=blue][b]As it was in the case of the paper bag[/
b][/color], Exhibit 142?

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][b]Yes, sir.[/b][/color]

[b]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.[/b]

Representative BOGGS. May I ask another question in this connection.
[color=blue]A weapon of this type, in your examination do you find a
lot of other prints on it as well? You do not?[/color]

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. [color=red][b]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.[/b][/
color]

[b]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?
[/b]

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?

[b]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![/b]

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, just to elaborate on some questions which Mr.
Boggs was asking earlier, Mr. Latona, [color=blue][b]referring
specifically to this weapon, [u]do you believe that a determination
could have been made as to the age of the print found on the weapon[/
u] which you have identified as being Oswald's print, and a lift of
which is Exhibit No. 637?[/b][/color]

Mr. LATONA. [color=blue][b]No; I don't.[/b][/color]

Mr. EISENBERG. [color=blue][b]You don't?[/b][/color]

Mr. LATONA. [color=red][b]No; I don't.[/b][/color]

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.

[b]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?[/b]