info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Another Public Lie By David Von Pein...
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Mar 23, 2017, 10:24:40 AM3/23/17
to
>> Tell us, for example, why Lt. Day didn't photograph the "palm print"?
>>
> David Von Pein:
> He probably should have photographed it before lifting it. But he opted for "lifting over photography" in the case of that palmprint. Whereas, the opposite was true for the trigger guard prints. Lt. Day opted for "photography over lifting" on those prints.
David is describing a NON-EXISTENT process.
He's pretending that there are two sorts of techniques that police use with fingerprints...
1. Sometimes they do a 'lift' of the print.
2. Other times, they simply photograph the print.
This is CLEARLY what David is saying... but he's a liar.
And what liars do is lie. David is quite good at it...
There's a *TWO-STEP* process... first you photograph the print, this is done so that if there are problems with the lift, you still have a record of the print.
THEN you do a lift of the print.
While there are times when you can only photograph a print (prints raised with superglue fumes, for example, or fingerprints in blood), there's NO TIME that you would do a lift without photographing the print first. Certainly not on a major case like this.
There's no such thing as a detective making a decision between "two" different methods.
David Von Pein is a LIAR!
>>
> David Von Pein:
> He probably should have photographed it before lifting it. But he opted for "lifting over photography" in the case of that palmprint. Whereas, the opposite was true for the trigger guard prints. Lt. Day opted for "photography over lifting" on those prints.
David is describing a NON-EXISTENT process.
He's pretending that there are two sorts of techniques that police use with fingerprints...
1. Sometimes they do a 'lift' of the print.
2. Other times, they simply photograph the print.
This is CLEARLY what David is saying... but he's a liar.
And what liars do is lie. David is quite good at it...
There's a *TWO-STEP* process... first you photograph the print, this is done so that if there are problems with the lift, you still have a record of the print.
THEN you do a lift of the print.
While there are times when you can only photograph a print (prints raised with superglue fumes, for example, or fingerprints in blood), there's NO TIME that you would do a lift without photographing the print first. Certainly not on a major case like this.
There's no such thing as a detective making a decision between "two" different methods.
David Von Pein is a LIAR!
David Von Pein
Mar 23, 2017, 10:46:31 AM3/23/17
to
Let's see what Lieutenant Day himself had to say....
LT. J.C. DAY -- "On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was ***going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print***. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun."
Replay....
"[I] was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print."
So, quite obviously, Lieutenant Day of the DPD didn't ALWAYS photograph a print FIRST before lifting it.
If Ben wants to call Carl Day a boob or a dope or a really dumb cop, I guess he can do that if he wants to. But the above testimony indicates that Lt. Day's standard procedure on how to lift and photograph fingerprints and palmprints is not always the same procedure that Ben "The Super Expert On Fingerprinting" Holmes would necessarily follow.
LT. J.C. DAY -- "On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was ***going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print***. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun."
Replay....
"[I] was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print."
So, quite obviously, Lieutenant Day of the DPD didn't ALWAYS photograph a print FIRST before lifting it.
If Ben wants to call Carl Day a boob or a dope or a really dumb cop, I guess he can do that if he wants to. But the above testimony indicates that Lt. Day's standard procedure on how to lift and photograph fingerprints and palmprints is not always the same procedure that Ben "The Super Expert On Fingerprinting" Holmes would necessarily follow.
Ben Holmes
Mar 23, 2017, 11:45:17 AM3/23/17
to
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:46:31 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> Let's see what Lieutenant Day himself had to say....
>
> LT. J.C. DAY -- "On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was ***going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print***. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun."
>
> Replay....
>
> "[I] was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print."
>
> So, quite obviously, Lieutenant Day of the DPD didn't ALWAYS photograph a print FIRST before lifting it.
Lt. Day was lying.
> Let's see what Lieutenant Day himself had to say....
>
> LT. J.C. DAY -- "On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was ***going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print***. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun."
>
> Replay....
>
> "[I] was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print."
>
> So, quite obviously, Lieutenant Day of the DPD didn't ALWAYS photograph a print FIRST before lifting it.
This is *NOT* standard practice, and *YOU KNOW IT*.
It would be *STUPID* to photograph what you've just ruined with a bad lift.
Whereas it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to damage a print with photography.
> If Ben wants to call Carl Day a boob or a dope or a really dumb cop, I guess he can do that if he wants to. But the above testimony indicates that Lt. Day's standard procedure on how to lift and photograph fingerprints and palmprints is not always the same procedure that Ben "The Super Expert On Fingerprinting" Holmes would necessarily follow.
The preponderance of the EVIDENCE shows that this "palmprint" never existed on 11/22/63.
And you know this.
So WHERE IS YOUR CITATION?
You've tried to claim that there's two distinct methods of preserving a print.
WHERE'S YOUR CITATION?
Of course, you know you can't provide one, since this is *NOT* standard forensics.
You lied... and the lie will remain on your website with no explanation...
0 new messages