question for Dave Reitzes
John Hunt
I was perusing *First Day Evidence* the other day. The finger print that
was photographed on the left side of triggerguard was from the right hand??
Which finger was it??
The first fingerprint guy could not ID the print as Oswald's. Did the second
guy, the one who "matched" the trigger guard print to Oswald, say how many
points he came up with??
John Hunt
--
Dave Reitzes
>Dave,
>
>I was perusing *First Day Evidence* the other day. The finger print that
>was photographed on the left side of triggerguard was from the right hand??
>Which finger was it??
Can't say I recall. Surely the book has the information you seek.
>The first figerprint guy could not ID the print as Oswald's. Did the second
>guy, the one who "matched" the trigger gaurd print to Oswald, say how many
>points he came up with??
>
>
>John Hunt
Offhand, I don't remember, but it was well above the legal minimum. Twelve,
perhaps? Check the book again.
Dave
--
DRoberdeau
>
>Dave,
>
>I was perusing *First Day Evidence* the other day. The finger print that
>was photographed on the left side of triggerguard was from the right hand??
>Which finger was it??
>
>
>guy, the one who "matched" the trigger guard print to Oswald, say how many
>points he came up with??
....Good Day John...."Day stated to the Warren Commission that he could not
exclude all possibility as to whose prints they were, but he did say that he
thought they were the right middle (#3, my insertion) and right ring (#4, my
insertion) finger of Oswald." (FDE, 107). DAY determined this by comparing
trigger.house photos to OSWALD's fingerprint card.
Later in the evening DAY was never able to confirm common points of identity
because he was interrupted and told that the FBI wanted the gun given to DRAIN
for transporting to washDC. DAY immediately stopped processing the MC at about
10:00pm.
BARNES later compared trigger.housing photographs to OSWALD's print cards and
found "3 points of identity" (FDE, 105).
SCALICE also later determined right middle and ring fingers (FDE, 120)
What is interesting is that the right hand fingerprints were found on the
solid, forward half, of the left side, of the MC.trigger housing. This means
that these #3 and #4 fingerprints were put on the trigger housing at a time
when OSWALD could not possibly have had his right, *trigger,* index, #2 finger
placed, or activating, the trigger of the MC.
Don
CV67 "Big John" USS John F. Kennedy Plank Walker
sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly.
WC: http://www.informatik.uni-rostock.de/Kennedy/WCH/
HSCA: http://freenet.buffalo.edu/~ck260/hsc.htm
Daily CT: http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/PG/PG.html
Daily LN: http://www.jfk-tour.com/
DP.live.cam: http://www2.earthcam.com/jfk/
>
>
>John Hunt
--
John Hunt
DRoberdeau <drobe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000317134240...@ng-co1.aol.com...
Had Dave responded with details that would have been my point. I think he
saw it comimg. It would seem he does not own the book. Nor do I. I
always read them first. I hate to through $ ot the window.
Was the middle finger closest to the barrel or to the butt??
Did Scalice offer up the points?? I did not catch any numbers, but I was
running out of time.
Dave seemed to say Scalice is willing to cop to + -12 points. I would be
intersted to see that work.
John Hunt
Russell Burr
> Dave,
>
> I was perusing *First Day Evidence* the other day. The finger print that
> was photographed on the left side of triggerguard was from the right hand??
> Which finger was it??
>
> The first fingerprint guy could not ID the print as Oswald's. Did the second
> guy, the one who "matched" the trigger guard print to Oswald, say how many
> points he came up with??
>
> John Hunt
Hi John, Vincent Scalise was engaged by Frontline, prior to their
production, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald". They were given Rusty
Livingston's high contrast photo prints of the rifle, taken before the
rifle was shipped to FBI Hdqs.The photos contained evidence that had gone
unnoticed, and when Frontline had Scalise analyze the photos, Oswald's
guilt seemed more certain. He found 3 fingers from Oswald's right hand
just inches from the trigger. (John, I don't know what fingers it was)
Scalise had located 18 points of identification. After the production
aired, Scalise continued his work and incresed the total to 24 points.
Other experts pointed out that the prints were fresh because they would
not last long on a smooth, oily metal surface such as the trigger guard
housing. (This makes me wonder why if it was oily, no one found even a
trace of oil on the bag).
Also, the freshest prints in the SN were Oswald's (with the exception of
the DP, that had handles the boxes). See CE 1309. Livingstone could tell
that they were the fresh because prints left on cardboard will, over time,
spread out thereby losing the good ridge detail that they found.
This all came from Russo's book, "Live By The Sword", page 462.
An interesting footnote in Russo's work was the identity of the
unidentified prints found among the boxes of the SN....Will Fritz! He
apparentely saw no need to be printed at the time but in 1984, Fritz
relented and let the FBI do the comparsion print, resolving the mystery.
Russ
--
Viking8350
>An interesting footnote in Russo's work was the identity of the
>unidentified prints found among the boxes of the SN....Will Fritz! He
>apparentely saw no need to be printed at the time but in 1984, Fritz
>relented and let the FBI do the comparsion print, resolving the mystery.
>
>Russ
are these the same pronts that Walt Brown claimed were Mac Wallace's?
viking8350
James K. Olmstead
> unidentified prints found among the boxes of the SN....Will Fritz! He
> apparentely saw no need to be printed at the time but in 1984, Fritz
> relented and let the FBI do the comparsion print, resolving the mystery.
Russ: Is the palmprint in question (unidentified print found 22 Nov,
1963) available within the WC evidence? If so do you have the # off hand?
On what grounds was Fritz selected for the request for testing by the FBI
and by whom was the testing comparison made? Was it the FBI? Was this
part of any "offical" investigation into the mater of the unidentified
print or could this have been some effort to "close the case" by a group
of "formers".
Was any comparison testing done on Manuel Rodriguez.....who I believe was
from Costa Rica not Cuba. The WC did in fact investigate this man, as a
potential "shooter" not "second shooter".
I don't think the issue has been resolved....unless it was part of some
Offical Investigation into the matter of, by legal reps of the USG. But
that's just my opinion.
jko
Russell Burr <l...@foxvalley.net> wrote in message
news:38D31B9B...@foxvalley.net...
> An interesting footnote in Russo's work was the identity of the
> unidentified prints found among the boxes of the SN....Will Fritz! He
> apparentely saw no need to be printed at the time but in 1984, Fritz
> relented and let the FBI do the comparsion print, resolving the mystery.
>
> Russ
> --
>
--
John Hunt
Russell Burr <l...@foxvalley.net> wrote in message
news:38D31B9B...@foxvalley.net...
> John Hunt wrote:
>
> > Dave,
> >
> > I was perusing *First Day Evidence* the other day. The finger print that
> > was photographed on the left side of triggerguard was from the right hand??
> > Which finger was it??
> >
> > The first fingerprint guy could not ID the print as Oswald's. Did the second
> > guy, the one who "matched" the trigger guard print to Oswald, say how many
> > points he came up with??
> >
> > John Hunt
>
> Hi John, Vincent Scalise was engaged by Frontline, prior to their
> production, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald". They were given Rusty
> Livingston's high contrast photo prints of the rifle, taken before the
> rifle was shipped to FBI Hdqs.The photos contained evidence that had gone
> unnoticed, and when Frontline had Scalise analyze the photos, Oswald's
> guilt seemed more certain. He found 3 fingers from Oswald's right hand
> just inches from the trigger. (John, I don't know what fingers it was)
>
> Scalise had located 18 points of identification. After the production
> aired, Scalise continued his work and incresed the total to 24 points.
He got 24 and the other guy who saw the same photos got 3?? Something
sounds off.
> Other experts pointed out that the prints were fresh because they would
> not last long on a smooth, oily metal surface such as the trigger guard
> housing. (This makes me wonder why if it was oily, no one found even a
> trace of oil on the bag).
:-) That IS strange, isn't it?? :-)
>
> Also, the freshest prints in the SN were Oswald's (with the exception of
> the DP, that had handles the boxes). See CE 1309. Livingstone could tell
> that they were the fresh because prints left on cardboard will, over time,
> spread out thereby losing the good ridge detail that they found.
Did the DP or FBI leave a test print on any of the "sniper's nest" cartons
to qualify how long it would take for the print to deteriorate??
John Hunt
--
Russell Burr
> >From: Russell Burr
>
> >An interesting footnote in Russo's work was the identity of the
> >unidentified prints found among the boxes of the SN....Will Fritz! He
> >apparentely saw no need to be printed at the time but in 1984, Fritz
> >relented and let the FBI do the comparsion print, resolving the mystery.
> >
> >Russ
>
> are these the same pronts that Walt Brown claimed were Mac Wallace's?
I have no idea. But after Fritz's print was identified in 1984 as the
unidentified prints, it's my understanding that all the prints were
accounted for....and this Mac Wallace thing sure didn't pan out, imo.
Russ
>
>
> viking8350
--
Russell Burr
> > An interesting footnote in Russo's work was the identity of the
> > unidentified prints found among the boxes of the SN....Will Fritz! He
> > apparentely saw no need to be printed at the time but in 1984, Fritz
> > relented and let the FBI do the comparsion print, resolving the mystery.
>
> Russ: Is the palmprint in question (unidentified print found 22 Nov,
> 1963) available within the WC evidence? If so do you have the # off hand?
No the HSCA:
Mr. CORNWELL. Can you now recall any of the specifics of the types of
investigative work found lacking as of August 27?
Mr. LIEBELER. The two specific questions that were discussed in the
meeting with Mr. Willens and Mr. Redlich I believe, if I have the sequence
straight in my mind, were the questions I referred to before, about the
existence of unidentified fingerprints and palm prints on the boxes in the
window in the School Book Depository and the question of the treatment of
the palm print that had allegedly been lifted from the underside of the
rifle barrel and identified as Oswald's. I have no independent
recollection of the sequence of events but I know that it was about that
time that this meeting occurred. By looking at some of the other memoranda
I can refresh my recollection that it was almost exactly at that time, I
believe it was that meeting I referred to in my memo of August 27.
During the course of the conversation I had argued to Mr. Redlich that the
record could not be left in the condition it was in. There
Page 215
215
had been no serious attempt to identify these other prints, as to the
prints on the carton, and there was a serious question as to the chain of
evidence as regards the palm print on the rifle barrel which I thought
should be resolved. Mr. Redlich did not want to conduct any investigation
into those matters. That led to a vigorous exchange between us. Mr. Rankin
was later informed of that exchange and he, after discussing the matter
with me, agreed to bring the FBI people back and discuss with them the
continuance of the investigation, and it was done.
>
>
> On what grounds was Fritz selected for the request for testing by the FBI
> and by whom was the testing comparison made? Was it the FBI?
Yes...I only know what is in the footnotes of Russo's book.
> Was this
> part of any "offical" investigation into the mater of the unidentified
> print or could this have been some effort to "close the case" by a group
> of "formers".
Your guess is as good as mine:-)
>
>
> Was any comparison testing done on Manuel Rodriguez.....who I believe was
> from Costa Rica not Cuba. The WC did in fact investigate this man, as a
> potential "shooter" not "second shooter".
Not based on Russo's footnote.
Russ
>
>
> I don't think the issue has been resolved....unless it was part of some
> Offical Investigation into the matter of, by legal reps of the USG. But
> that's just my opinion.
>
> jko
>
> Russell Burr <l...@foxvalley.net> wrote in message
> news:38D31B9B...@foxvalley.net...
> > John Hunt wrote:
> >
> > > Dave,
> > >
> > > I was perusing *First Day Evidence* the other day. The finger print that
> > > was photographed on the left side of triggerguard was from the right hand??
> > > Which finger was it??
> > >
> > > The first fingerprint guy could not ID the print as Oswald's. Did the second
> > > guy, the one who "matched" the trigger guard print to Oswald, say how many
> > > points he came up with??
> > >
> > > John Hunt
> >
> > Hi John, Vincent Scalise was engaged by Frontline, prior to their
> > production, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald". They were given Rusty
> > Livingston's high contrast photo prints of the rifle, taken before the
> > rifle was shipped to FBI Hdqs.The photos contained evidence that had gone
> > unnoticed, and when Frontline had Scalise analyze the photos, Oswald's
> > guilt seemed more certain. He found 3 fingers from Oswald's right hand
> > just inches from the trigger. (John, I don't know what fingers it was)
> >
> > Scalise had located 18 points of identification. After the production
> > aired, Scalise continued his work and incresed the total to 24 points.
> > Other experts pointed out that the prints were fresh because they would
> > not last long on a smooth, oily metal surface such as the trigger guard
> > housing. (This makes me wonder why if it was oily, no one found even a
> > trace of oil on the bag).
> >
> > Also, the freshest prints in the SN were Oswald's (with the exception of
> > the DP, that had handles the boxes). See CE 1309. Livingstone could tell
> > that they were the fresh because prints left on cardboard will, over time,
> > spread out thereby losing the good ridge detail that they found.
> >
> > This all came from Russo's book, "Live By The Sword", page 462.
> >
> > An interesting footnote in Russo's work was the identity of the
> > unidentified prints found among the boxes of the SN....Will Fritz! He
> > apparentely saw no need to be printed at the time but in 1984, Fritz
> > relented and let the FBI do the comparsion print, resolving the mystery.
> >
> > Russ
> > --
> >
>
> --
--
James K. Olmstead
> "James K. Olmstead" wrote:
>
> > > An interesting footnote in Russo's work was the identity of the
> > > unidentified prints found among the boxes of the SN....Will Fritz! He
> > > apparentely saw no need to be printed at the time but in 1984, Fritz
> > > relented and let the FBI do the comparsion print, resolving the mystery.
> >
> > Russ: Is the palmprint in question (unidentified print found 22 Nov,
> > 1963) available within the WC evidence? If so do you have the # off hand?
>
> No the HSCA:
>
Thanks, will check out the volumes this weekend.
> Mr. CORNWELL. Can you now recall any of the specifics of the types of
> investigative work found lacking as of August 27?
> Mr. LIEBELER. The two specific questions that were discussed in the
> meeting with Mr. Willens and Mr. Redlich I believe, if I have the sequence
> straight in my mind, were the questions I referred to before, about the
> existence of unidentified fingerprints
The print in question is a palmprint...not fingerprint.
and palm prints on the boxes in the
> window in the School Book Depository and the question of the treatment of
> the palm print that had allegedly been lifted from the underside of the
> rifle barrel and identified as Oswald's. I have no independent
> recollection of the sequence of events but I know that it was about that
> time that this meeting occurred. By looking at some of the other memoranda
> I can refresh my recollection that it was almost exactly at that time, I
> believe it was that meeting I referred to in my memo of August 27.
> During the course of the conversation I had argued to Mr. Redlich that the
> record could not be left in the condition it was in. There
>
> Page 215
> 215
>
> had been no serious attempt to identify these other prints, as to the
> prints on the carton, and there was a serious question as to the chain of
> evidence as regards the palm print on the rifle barrel which I thought
> should be resolved. Mr. Redlich did not want to conduct any investigation
> into those matters. That led to a vigorous exchange between us. Mr. Rankin
> was later informed of that exchange and he, after discussing the matter
> with me, agreed to bring the FBI people back and discuss with them the
> continuance of the investigation, and it was done.
>
> >
> >
> > On what grounds was Fritz selected for the request for testing by the FBI
> > and by whom was the testing comparison made? Was it the FBI?
>
> Yes...I only know what is in the footnotes of Russo's book.
>
I have his book, but I find it lacking in many area of my interests he's
qouting Savage in the footnote....but not sure where in the Oswald Affair
he is quoting from.
> > Was this
> > part of any "offical" investigation into the mater of the unidentified
> > print or could this have been some effort to "close the case" by a group
> > of "formers".
>
> Your guess is as good as mine:-)
My guess is that it was a group of "formers" trying to cover errors in the
offical investigations.
> >
> > Was any comparison testing done on Manuel Rodriguez.....who I believe was
> > from Costa Rica not Cuba. The WC did in fact investigate this man, as a
> > potential "shooter" not "second shooter".
>
> Not based on Russo's footnote.
>
I'm going on the WC here not Russo.
--