Vinny Ambushes Darby .... !
cdddraftsman
"I told him I had trouble with his finding a "match" between prints
found at the sniper's nest on the sixth floor and the fingerprint
exemplar card of Wallace.
"Why?" he asked.
"Because," I pointed out, "the unidentified latent print found on the
6th floor was a palm print, not a fingerprint & unless you've come up
with something new, I've never heard of anyone matching a palm print
with a fingerprint."
Darby, knew he had been taken"
end
tl
Gil Jesus
WRONG
Arthur Mandella testified that of the three FINGERPRINTS numbered 25 &
27 in CE 656, the left and right FINGERPRINTS were UNIDENTIFIED..
( 4 H 51-52 )
DO THESE LOOK LIKE PALMPRINTS TO YOU ?
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0164b.htm
IDIOT
Gil Jesus
>
> IDIOT-
Mr. EISENBERG. These contain your notes not only as to the
fingerprints you identified, but those which you did not identify
against a known print which you were given?
Mr. MANDELLA. That is right. There were quite a few fingerprints that
didn't belong to Oswald. However, they belonged to one another.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to say, you found two prints which were
identical to each other?
Mr. MANDELLA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Two latents which were identical to each other?
Mr. MANDELLA. That is right, but to whom they belong I have no idea.
( 4 H 55 )
TWO unidentified latent FINGERPRINTS ?
HOW DID BUGLIOSI MISS THAT ?....ROFLAMO
David Von Pein
Arthur Mandella's testimony can be easily explained by the fact that
he testified MONTHS PRIOR to CE3131 being sent to the Warren
Commission by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, with Commission Exhibit
3131 being the document wherein Hoover tells the Commission on
September 18, 1964 (just six days before the WC issued its final
report to President Johnson), that after all of the prints from the
TSBD boxes had been examined and compared with prints of people from
the Dallas Police Department (with some of these these comparisons
apparently not taking place until September 8, 1964, per the verbiage
that can be found in CE3131), there was only one single print (a "palm
print") taken from any of the Depository book cartons that remained
unidentified as of 9/18/64.
CE3131:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0423a.htm
Fingerprint expert Arthur Mandella of the New York City Police
Department testified before the Warren Commission on April 2, 1964,
more than FIVE MONTHS before J. Edgar Hoover's Federal Bureau of
Investigation wrote its 18-page report (CE3131) to J. Lee Rankin of
the Warren Commission.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/959348ffc39ae22e
aeffects
On Dec 15, 10:18 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Arthur Mandella's testimony can be easily explained by the fact that
> he testified MONTHS PRIOR to CE3131 being sent to the Warren
> Commission by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, with Commission Exhibit
> 3131 being the document wherein Hoover tells the Commission on
> September 18, 1964 (just six days before the WC issued its final
> report to President Johnson), that after all of the prints from the
> TSBD boxes had been examined and compared with prints of people from
> the Dallas Police Department (with some of these these comparisons
> apparently not taking place until September 8, 1964, per the verbiage
> that can be found in CE3131), there was only one single print (a "palm
> print") taken from any of the Depository book cartons that remained
> unidentified as of 9/18/64.
>
> CE3131:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0...
Gil Jesus
> Arthur Mandella's testimony can be easily explained by the fact that
> he testified MONTHS PRIOR to CE3131 being sent to the Warren
> Commission by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, with Commission Exhibit
> 3131 being the document wherein Hoover tells the Commission on
> September 18, 1964 (just six days before the WC issued its final
> report to President Johnson), that after all of the prints from the
> TSBD boxes had been examined and compared with prints of people from
> the Dallas Police Department (with some of these these comparisons
> apparently not taking place until September 8, 1964, per the verbiage
> that can be found in CE3131), there was only one single print (a "palm
> print") taken from any of the Depository book cartons that remained
> unidentified as of 9/18/64.
>
>
> Fingerprint expert Arthur Mandella of the New York City Police
> Department testified before the Warren Commission on April 2, 1964,
> more than FIVE MONTHS before J. Edgar Hoover's Federal Bureau of
> Investigation wrote its 18-page report (CE3131) to J. Lee Rankin of
> the Warren Commission.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/959348ffc39ae22e
ROFLMAO
Mandella testified that in BOTH three fingerprint sets, the middle
fingerprint belonged to Oswald.
That's TWO Oswald fingerprints and four unidentified.
Mr. MANDELLA. "Center impression No. 2 finger Oswald from Box A photo--
latent on left unidentified Photo Nos. 25 and 27 identical--Negative
with Oswald unidentified."
Mr. EISENBERG. "Negative with Oswald," are you referring now to two of
the three photographs--two of the three prints appearing on the
photograph?
Mr. MANDELLA. That is right, two prints, exactly, the one in the
center, of course I am not in reference to the one in the center,
which is his. The two on the right and left are unidentified.
( 4 H 51-52 )
It sounds like Von Pein is admitting that one of the Commission's
"experts" ( Mandella ) got it WRONG and his error was "corrected" by
the FBI.
And they talk about Darby.......ROFLMAO
David Von Pein
Try explaining CE3131, Gil.
CE3131 says, unequivocally, that all of the prints on the TSBD boxes
(AS OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1964) were IDed except one palmprint.
Is CE3131 a lie, Gil?
Gil Jesus
Am I correct in assuming, then, that you prefer the document over
sworn testimony ?
mucher1
Are we correct in assuming that you are incredibly stupid, Gil? People
of normal intelligence have no trouble understanding the concept of
something being "unidentified" until it becomes "identified". Mandella
testified on 4/2/64, and Hoover's letter is dated 9/18/64.
Steve
> >>> "Am I correct in assuming, then, that you prefer the document [CE3131] over sworn testimony [of Arthur Mandella of the New York City Police Department]?" <<<
>
> You're an idiot, Gil. And so is anybody else who comes to the
> conclusion that Arthur Mandella's April 2, 1964, Warren Commission
> testimony (wherein he says that some of the fingerprints from the TSBD
> book cartons could not be identified) trumps Warren Commission Exhibit
> No. 3131, linked below:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0...
>
> It couldn't be more obvious what the solution is to this "unidentified
> fingerprints on the boxes" matter, and that obvious answer is this
> one:
>
> Arthur Mandella examined the prints taken from the four boxes MONTHS
> BEFORE the "unidentified" fingerprints were officially identified--
> with those official identifications of the prints not coming until
> early SEPTEMBER 1964, just days before the Warren Commission's final
> report was released.
>
> So, Gil, how in the world is fingerprint analyst Arthur Mandella
> supposed to be able to identify any of the prints on the boxes (except
> those of Lee Harvey Oswald, of course, since Mandella had known
> samples of Oswald's prints to compare with the prints he examined from
> the TSBD boxes) when the comparison prints of all of the various
> Dallas Police Department officers and clerks had not yet been taken as
> of the date when Mandella did his fingerprint examinations?
>
> The FBI didn't even start to gather the comparison prints of the DPD
> officers until late AUGUST and early SEPTEMBER of 1964, so it would
> have been impossible for Mandella to make any kind of identification
> on any of the non-Oswald prints prior to that time. (And, as
> mentioned, Mandella testified about his
> fingerprint work on April 2, 1964.)
>
> Do the math, Gil. It's not hard....even for an Anybody-But-Oswald kook
> like yourself.
>
> "CE3131" ADDENDUM & CORRECTION:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/da61f485689fd6d7
>
> I want to correct something I said in the post linked directly above
> (because I cannot stand errors in my posts):
>
> I stated that Commission Exhibit Number 3131 was an "18-page report"
> submitted to J. Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission by J. Edgar Hoover
> of the FBI on September 18, 1964. That's not quite entirely accurate.
> CE3131, upon further study and examination, actually consists of a 3-
> page letter from J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI (plus 2 pages of
> enclosures/attachments).
>
> In addition, the exhibit known as CE3131 also consists of 16
> additional FBI documents generated by various FBI agents in late
> August and early September of 1964 concerning the "fingerprint on the
> TSBD boxes" issue, making for a total of 21 pages within CE3131.
>
> And among those 21 pages which make up CE3131, there are multiple
> references within the various FBI documents to the fact that there was
> only ONE SINGLE PRINT taken from the four TSBD book cartons that
> remained unidentified as of September 1964, and that one unidentified
> print was a PALMPRINT, not a FINGERPRINT.
>
> http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
You were saying, Gil....????
David Von Pein
>>> "Am I correct in assuming, then, that you prefer the document [CE3131] over sworn testimony [of Arthur Mandella of the New York City Police Department]?" <<<
You're an idiot, Gil. And so is anybody else who comes to the
conclusion that Arthur Mandella's April 2, 1964, Warren Commission
testimony (wherein he says that some of the fingerprints from the TSBD
book cartons could not be identified) trumps Warren Commission Exhibit
No. 3131, linked below:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0418a.htm
"CE3131" ADDENDUM & CORRECTION:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/da61f485689fd6d7
additional pages of FBI documents generated by various FBI agents in
David Von Pein
I apologize to Steve. His last response is going to show up out of
sequence (on the Google Groups server anyway), because I was (as
usual) forced to generate multiple re-posts of my last post in this
thread due to a silly typing error (which happens almost 100% of the
time with my posts now, which pisses me off greatly).
And I will not tolerate errors, so re-posts become mandatory for my
archived files. And I'm sorry about that, because it probably looks
really goofy to people using a server other than Google's (because I
am able to delete unwanted posts off of the Google server only).
Gosh how I wish Google Groups/Usenet would find some way to add an
"Edit" feature to these newsgroups. That would be heavenly. ;)
Gil Jesus
> >>> "Am I correct in assuming, then, that you prefer the document [CE3131] over sworn testimony [of Arthur Mandella of the New York City Police Department]?" <<<
>
> You're an idiot, Gil. And so is anybody else who comes to the
> conclusion that Arthur Mandella's April 2, 1964, Warren Commission
> testimony (wherein he says that some of the fingerprints from the TSBD
> book cartons could not be identified) trumps Warren Commission Exhibit
> No. 3131, linked below:
You're right David.
Anything anyone types up on paper trumps expert testimony under oath.
Try feeding that BS to a trial judge or jury.
More likely, in your world, the last word is always the truth.
So my assumption was correct. You accept the last minute excuse of J.
Edgar Hoover and impeach your own expert witness testimony that
concluded that:
a.) four of the fingerprints in # 25 & 27 of CE 656 were
unidentifiable and
b.) the other two were Oswald's.
The FBI report you refer to said that the 19 fingerprints found on Box
A belonged to members of the DPD.
That means that not one of them belonged to Oswald, David.
So either Hoover LIED in his report or YOUR expert, Mandella, made TWO
wrong identifications.
So which is it ?
The point is.....don't trash Nathan Darby.
cdddraftsman
>
> The point is.....don't trash Nathan Darby.
>
>
Nathan was already trashed before he died :
"Nathan Darby is the fingerprint expert utilized by Barr McClellan and
Walt Brown. A March 9, 1998 affidavit recounts Darby's work history.
His employment began with the Texas Department of Public Safety in
1938. In October of 1940 he joined the Austin Texas Police Department.
He was promoted to sergeant in 1948 and lieutenant in 1953. He became
supervisor of the Identification and Criminal Records Section in 1956.
He was on the board of directors of the Texas Division of the
International Association for Identification. He holds an Advanced
Certificate in Law Enforcement and an Instructors Certificate from the
Texas Commission on Law Enforcement. He has been a member of the Texas
Division of the International Association for Identification since
November 1946.
Darby did a "blind" study comparing a fingerprint found on one of the
boxes in the Kennedy assassination "sniper's" nest against Malcolm
Wallace's fingerprint card. He determined there was a match. However
in his 1998 affidavit concerning the study he conducted I found the
following:
"7. "Recently I received a photocopy of an inked print along with a
photocopy of a latent print from [Texas researcher]. After careful and
extended examination of the inked print photocopy and the latent print
photocopy given me. I have their identifying characteristics marked
and numbered. The inked print is Exhibit DAN #3, and the latent print
is Exhibit DAN #4." (Emphasis mine)
Dr. Brown's assertion in The Guilty Men that the fingerprint match is
a "slam dunk" belies the fact that photocopies rather than original
photographs were used for the comparison.
Then there is Glen Sample who with Mark Collom authored The Men on the
Sixth Floor, (Garden Grove, CA: Sample Graphics, 1995). He has
vociferously disputed McClellan, Brown and Darby's fingerprint
evidence that supposedly places Malcolm Wallace on the sixth floor
with Oswald.
The Men on the Sixth Floor's web site (http://home.earthlink.net/
~sixthfloor/) press release of May 27, 1998 concluded:
"The challenge is hereby issued to Walt Brown, Jay Harrison, Barr
McClellen and the entire Texas research group who claim to have made a
forensic match between Wallace and the sixth floor fingerprints.
Provide for us proof that will stand up to the harshest scrutiny of
the critics. We will be waiting - hoping, for a change, that we are
wrong."
Since his performance on the History Channel he has removed from his
web site all references to past differences and is now working
steadfastly on resolving the "issues."
"Even though Mark and I were unsuccessful (through our fingerprint
investigators) in finding a match, we still feel that there is a
distinct possibility that Darby's work is correct. Having discussed
the issues with Mr. Darby, as well as, with Barr McClellan, we are now
revisiting the print issue."
Glen Sample 11/22/03
In The Guilty Men, Sample fails to spell out that his book implicating
Malcolm Wallace as a shooter is based upon the "confession" of a now
deceased Chickasaw Indian, Loy Factor. Factor died May 5, 1994 due to
complications from diabetes.
Sample's co-author Mark Collom discovered Factor in 1971 while both he
and Factor were in the hospital isolation ward at the State Prison at
McAlester, Oklahoma. Factor was incarcerated for the 1968-
strangulation murder of his wife while Collom was serving a 16-month
sentence for a drug-related conviction. (Emphasis mine)
Sample and Collom believe just about everything that Factor tells
them. So what do the authors have to say concerning Factor's veracity?
Factor is a man described in the book as having:
". . . a metal plate in his head as a result of a shrapnel wound,
according to a brother. Factor was a veteran of World War II, and in
June, 1948, the Veterans Administration said he was incompetent and
entitled to receive compensation in the amount of $60 per month, but a
guardian must be appointed before the monies would be released." (p.
43)
If Nigel Turner had compelled Sample to tell the whole story for the
"documentary", that is that Factor's claims of involvement contradict
McClellan's assertions - it might just damage the credibility of The
Guilty Men.
Next we have Ed Tatro who I believe must be an expert in document
mutation. In The Guilty Men he managed to convert an August 9, 1984
letter from Billie Sol Estes attorney, Douglas Caddy, to Stephen Trott
of the U.S. Department of Justice into a "Justice Department
document."
So naïve is Mr. Tatro he feels convicted con-man Estes, who was
involved in millions of dollars in loans made on nonexistent
fertilizer tanks, ". . . is telling the truth and there is every
reason to believe he is . . ." Tatro never reveals just why he feels
the almost life long plea bargaining Estes would not attempt to
deceive"
Dave Perry
end ....
tl
Dave Perry is the 'Ace Detective' for The History Channel
Gil Jesus is Tom Rossley's 'Ace Video Maker' who has posted over 150
fraudulent video's at
David Von Pein
>>> "The FBI report you refer to said that the 19 fingerprints found on Box A belonged to members of the DPD. That means that not one of them belonged to Oswald, David." <<<
Jesus H. Christ, what a retard Gilbert J. Jesus is!
Why can't (or won't) he READ what CE3131 really says?! One can only
wonder why.
Allow me to spoonfeed this material to Gilbert yet again. Here's the
language used in CE3131:
"The 19 identifiable latent fingerprints and six identifiable
palm prints on the four cardboard cartons, WHICH ARE EXCLUSIVE OF THE
ONE PALM PRINT OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD FOUND ON BOX "A" [DVP's emphasis,
for the benefit of a complete retard named Gilbert J. Jesus], were
identified as follows..."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0423a.htm
REPRISE:
1.) Arthur Mandella testified in front of the Warren Commission on
April 2, 1964.
2.) The FBI didn't collect any prints from any of the DPD officers and
clerks until LATE AUGUST AND EARLY SEPTEMBER of 1964 (per CE3131).
3.) ALL of the identifiable fingerprints and palmprints on the four
TSBD boxes (except one single PALMPRINT, as mentioned multiple times
in CE3131) belonged either to Lee Harvey Oswald (which Mandella was
able to confirm, since Mandella had Oswald's prints for comparison
purposes) or the several DPD members mentioned in Commission Exhibit
No. 3131 linked above.
4.) Therefore, Mandella could not possibly have "identified" any of
those yet-to-be-identified prints on the various TSBD boxes PRIOR TO
AUGUST/SEPT. 1964.
5.) Therefore, Madella said this (and rightfully so) to the Warren
Commission on April 2, 1964:
"There were quite a few fingerprints that didn't belong to
Oswald. However, they belonged to one another...but to whom they
belong I have no idea." -- Arthur Mandella; 04/02/64
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/23a73be6ac19b1c9