Real palmprint or what?

[Questionin]

Day claimed to have found the print on the rifle barrel. But where did it
really come from. Did it really happen that way for double agent Day?
Every body agree that agents came to the funeral home and took prints off
Oswald. Cters are to stupid to ask who they were. And LNers are busy
dodging the fact they did.

So let me step up and ask.

Who were the three agent that took the prints off Oswald's corpse? When
was it? At what time did it occur? Is there any OTHER information relating
to the event? Or was it only Rusty Livingstone alone, who slipped in the
back door, in the dead of the night, and stole the evidence for his
collection?

[bigdog]

The print which Day forwarded to the FBI bore the same irregularities
that were on the barrel of the rifle confirming the print came from
Oswald's MC.

[Ace Kefford]

When will people ever give up these "speculations" when their
"theories" have already been met with fact?

Thank you for trying. It won't work with most, but might help a few.

[timstter]

If you're so interested in the answers, why don't you do a little
investigation yourself? Turn up the names of the mystery corpse
fingerprinters?

Others of us are satisfied that Oswald's prints WERE on HIS rifle, as
per fingerprint EXPERT Vincent Scalice years ago on PBS TV.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/21/2012 8:25 AM, timstter wrote:
> On Mar 21, 6:54 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 11:36 am, "Questionin"<Questi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Day claimed to have found the print on the rifle barrel. But where did it
>>> really come from. Did it really happen that way for double agent Day?
>>> Every body agree that agents came to the funeral home and took prints off
>>> Oswald. Cters are to stupid to ask who they were. And LNers are busy
>>> dodging the fact they did.
>>
>>> So let me step up and ask.
>>
>>> Who were the three agent that took the prints off Oswald's corpse? When
>>> was it? At what time did it occur? Is there any OTHER information relating
>>> to the event? Or was it only Rusty Livingstone alone, who slipped in the
>>> back door, in the dead of the night, and stole the evidence for his
>>> collection?
>>
>> The print which Day forwarded to the FBI bore the same irregularities
>> that were on the barrel of the rifle confirming the print came from
>> Oswald's MC.
>
> If you're so interested in the answers, why don't you do a little
> investigation yourself? Turn up the names of the mystery corpse
> fingerprinters?
>

Silly. You support the cover-up and then you claim that the responsibility
for uncovering it rests with the individual researcher and not with the
official investigative organizations. That's like a hollow challenge to me
to find the missing backyard negatives or the destroyed autopsy photos.

> Others of us are satisfied that Oswald's prints WERE on HIS rifle, as
> per fingerprint EXPERT Vincent Scalice years ago on PBS TV.
>

So what? That was not the issue.
And why shouldn't his prints be on his own damn rifle?

[markusp]

On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 2:54:08 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

> The print which Day forwarded to the FBI bore the same irregularities
> that were on the barrel of the rifle confirming the print came from
> Oswald's MC.

I recently purchased Bugliosi's "Four Days in November". I don't have it
right here, but I think Vince deals with Oswald's corpse being
fingerprinted by using the caveat of "why Oswald's fingerprints weren't
taken immediately after arrest and booking is unknown" or something to
that effect.

Anyway, this particular book by Vince isn't meant to be a research
project. I bought it in Hibbing, Vince's hometown, and mine since '81. I
often think how great it would be to "debate" him here, but then I'd
likely come out on the short end of that stick!

~Mark

[bigdog]

I have to agree with that last part. One thing I've noticed about VB,
he prepares meticulously and has command of whatever material he is
speaking about.

I had taken the educated guess that when the FBI received the palm
print from Day that they needed a sample print from Oswald to compare
it to. If they had taken his fingerprints but not his palm print when
arrested, they would need to go to the funeral home to get a sample
palm print. DVP has since informed me that the DPD had both finger and
palm prints of Oswald on file, so now I'm not sure what the reason was
for the trip to the funeral home. Perhaps DVP can clear this one up.

[markusp]

On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:05:52 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> I have to agree with that last part. One thing I've noticed about VB,
> he prepares meticulously and has command of whatever material he is
> speaking about.

You may have even understated it!!!

> I had taken the educated guess that when the FBI received the palm
> print from Day that they needed a sample print from Oswald to compare
> it to. If they had taken his fingerprints but not his palm print when
> arrested, they would need to go to the funeral home to get a sample
> palm print.

That seems quite sensible, and I look forward to DVP's take on it. Thanks,
Bigdog!

[pjsp...@aol.com]

The DPD made three sets of Oswald's prints on the evening of the 22nd,
morning of the 23rd. My understanding is that it was SOP to take prints of
dead men under indictment, to confirm their death. Thus, the dead man's
prints.

[bigdog]

Seems like a plausible explaination.

[Anthony Marsh]

Wonderful. Show me the DPD card with the Oswald prints on it they made
when he was dead.

[Anthony Marsh]

That sounds ok. Where is it document that's what they did? Show me the
prints they took from Oswald's hands when he was dead.

[markusp]

On Thursday, March 22, 2012 9:20:59 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> That sounds ok. Where is it document that's what they did? Show me the
> prints they took from Oswald's hands when he was dead.

I surely wish that I could, Tony!!!
~Mark

[markusp]

On Thursday, March 22, 2012 5:53:57 PM UTC-5, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:

> The DPD made three sets of Oswald's prints on the evening of the 22nd,
> morning of the 23rd. My understanding is that it was SOP to take prints of
> dead men under indictment, to confirm their death. Thus, the dead man's
> prints.

Thanks, Pat, I needed that information!
~Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/24/2012 10:17 AM, James K. Olmstead wrote:
> Attached is the DPD latents of Oswald's fingertips....to understand some
> of the controversy read VB's section of RH where he mentions the FBI's
> visit to the morgue to take prints. I'm heading to the FBI fingerprint
> lab in West Virgiina and to the DC office, next month to address some
> issues, with them. My request to the FBI on the fingerprints conflicts is
> now over 11 years old. (Sept 2001 FOIA request).
>
> BTW VB did a great "one sided" job on this issue....but ignored the major
> aspects of consideration.
>
> One of the major issue, concerning the recorded latents of Oswald, is the
> fact that the DPD did not make a Master Case Print record of LHO, nor did
> the FBI request them to do so. The FBI however did request a Master Case
> Print record to be done on Ruby.
>
> ***MCP record the edges of the hand as well as the sides of the fingers
> (about 30 latents on fingers alone).
>
> The only legal grounds for the FBI visit, is to obtain "deadman's record"
> of Oswald's hands (Oswald's murder was a state of Texas issue, not
> Federal) is to obtain a MCP record of Oswald, to be used in the JFK case.
> There has to be major grounds for the FBI to request MCP's of Ruby.....the
> reason is not disclosed, which leads to major speculation.
>
> My first thoughts on the FBI visit were that the FBI went there to get a
> MCP record of Oswald. If this is the case they never released these
> images, nor have I been able to find them at the Archives.
>
> My second thoughts on the issue is that the "under the scopic sight"
> latent is Ruby's or anothers who handled the rifle in a manner that
> indicates "firing".
>
> For those that do not know the details....The "palmprint" on the barrel
> is not the "under the scopic sight" latent discoverd by Day. There are AT
> LEAST TWO PALMPRINTS on the rifle barrel....one Oswald's and the other the
> in my opinion the shooter.
>
> The WC was deeply concerned that the known palmprint on the barrel was
> "planted" by (????) at the morgue. This controversy is "basically
> addressed" in the WC report. The planting possibility is
> there.....however the "under the scopic sight" latent is NEVER MENTIONED,
> except by Lt. Day in his testimony, it is a far greater issue, since
> exclusion of the "under the scopic sight" is a major consideration of
> valid exculpatory evidence, that Oswald did not fire the rifle. No one
> can claim Oswald fired the rifle until any controversy concerning the
> "under the scopic sight" latent is identified. This latent, in my opinion,
> is the "reasonable doubt" which is why it has been handled as it has been.
>
> jko
>
>
> "markusp"<marki...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:30698241.1374.1332525492608.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjl17...

What you uploaded is so hokey. How long did it take you to make that up?
Couldn't you even check online to get some of the details right? Weigh 131
pounds? Where did you get that from, his high school records? Occupation
Photographer? Where did you get that from, his New Orleans job? This phony
document shows poorly made partial fingerprints. Looks like a classroom
experiment.

And as usual you avoid the question. The funeral home director said there
was ink on his hands that he had to remove. Some chimed in that maybe the
cops or someone needed his palm prints because they had not taken them
when Oswald was alive and only realized they needed them for comparison
when Lt. Day found a partial palm print on the barrel. OK, that's a fun
theory. So SHOW me the DPD record of the palm print. Not his Marine
fingerprints. Not his high school dental records.

[James K. Olmstead]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4f6e2e37$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Tony.....you asked for the latents taken and I provided what is a matter
of record. What the FBI obtained is NOT available. It can only be assumed
based on the amount of "ink" left on Oswald's hands, they made a MCP
record, which is a record they did not have and needed.

I didn't fill out any of the information on the card.

It's not a "phony document" it's part of the Dallas records collection.
The information is incorrect....but that's not my fault.

> And as usual you avoid the question.

I avoid no question and provided material asked for, even though you were
not specific.

The funeral home director said there
> was ink on his hands that he had to remove. Some chimed in that maybe the
> cops or someone needed his palm prints because they had not taken them
> when Oswald was alive and only realized they needed them for comparison
> when Lt. Day found a partial palm print on the barrel. OK, that's a fun
> theory. So SHOW me the DPD record of the palm print. Not his Marine
> fingerprints. Not his high school dental records.

The DPD did not make any palm print record of Oswald at the funreal home,
the did exactly as established by proceedure...they made the palmprints
during his booking process. It's also part of the offical records and
posting it serves no purpose to post them, the exhibits of the palmprints
include WCE 628 and WCE 629.

jko

[Anthony Marsh]

Then why would anyone need to take prints from the dead hands?

> jko

[James K. Olmstead]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:4f7210a2$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Tony: The state of Texas required the "body" of LHO to be
fingerprinted.....they did this as a matter of record in murder cases.
I'm not sure if all bodies in morgues in Texas are still required to
fingerprinted, but it is a common practice of keeping identification of
bodies worked on for "State" reasons....ie murder victims.

If you want a better or more detailed answer contact the State of Texas
AG's office.

There are other reasons for fingerprinting bodies and there is a
"proceedure" for doing so, which includes injection of a medium to replace
lost fluids.

As to the FBI, the fingerprint record needed was "incomplete", to compare
latent images found on items of evidence in the JFK case. They needed a
Master Case Print record for comparisions of "partials", that maybe left
from the sides of the fingers, heel, web, or edge of the hand, not record
in the standard proceedures of fingerprinting used on Oswald. Ridgelines
extent up the sides of the fingers into the pores and lines of the back of
the hand. This extention adds in evaluation of "grip" or "contact" of
partials.

If they did in fact take the latents of Oswald for this record and
comparison, the record should have been "included" in the JFK Records
Collection (WCR) as a "exhibit". If they took the opportunity to visit
the morgue on "pretext" of getting MCP's and "planted" latent image
impressions, say on the MC barrel or paper (bag), then there is a problem.
The area only had to be "oiled" and then placed in contact with the item.
Inking would cover the "oiling".

That problem was partially addressed by the WC and individuals like VB.
They did not go far enough to resolve any and all conflict. Witholding
MCP's may or may not be exculpatory. It's not if they are "still"
investigating the case....imo I think they are still working (slowly) on
some un-identified latents in the JFK case. Days before the WCR was
issued, the FBI stated to the WC that at least one "palmprint" had yet to
be identified. I think there are more, based on testimony and known
exhibits, such as WCE 720/721.

jko

[Anthony Marsh]

No, that was not a law in Texas that every murder victim had to be
fingerprinted. Especially when the victim was positively identified,
especially by law enforcement which already had his fingerprints.

> I'm not sure if all bodies in morgues in Texas are still required to
> fingerprinted, but it is a common practice of keeping identification of
> bodies worked on for "State" reasons....ie murder victims.
>

Silly, you can't prove that. You are just making up crap.

> If you want a better or more detailed answer contact the State of Texas
> AG's office.

If it were the law then you could cite it. But you never cite anything.

>
> There are other reasons for fingerprinting bodies and there is a
> "proceedure" for doing so, which includes injection of a medium to replace
> lost fluids.
>

As needed on a case by case basis.

> As to the FBI, the fingerprint record needed was "incomplete", to compare
> latent images found on items of evidence in the JFK case. They needed a
> Master Case Print record for comparisions of "partials", that maybe left
> from the sides of the fingers, heel, web, or edge of the hand, not record
> in the standard proceedures of fingerprinting used on Oswald. Ridgelines
> extent up the sides of the fingers into the pores and lines of the back of
> the hand. This extention adds in evaluation of "grip" or "contact" of
> partials.
>

So your theory is that the FBI took the prints because they knew the DPD
was incompetent?
Could this possibly have anything to do with Latona saying he could not
find Oswald's prints on the rifle?

> If they did in fact take the latents of Oswald for this record and
> comparison, the record should have been "included" in the JFK Records
> Collection (WCR) as a "exhibit". If they took the opportunity to visit

Oh please. Pretend you don't know about many agencies burying records.

> the morgue on "pretext" of getting MCP's and "planted" latent image
> impressions, say on the MC barrel or paper (bag), then there is a problem.
> The area only had to be "oiled" and then placed in contact with the item.
> Inking would cover the "oiling".
>
> That problem was partially addressed by the WC and individuals like VB.
> They did not go far enough to resolve any and all conflict. Witholding
> MCP's may or may not be exculpatory. It's not if they are "still"
> investigating the case....imo I think they are still working (slowly) on
> some un-identified latents in the JFK case. Days before the WCR was
> issued, the FBI stated to the WC that at least one "palmprint" had yet to
> be identified. I think there are more, based on testimony and known
> exhibits, such as WCE 720/721.
>

Any chance that someone will someday tell the truth before everyone dies?

> jko

[James K. Olmstead]

no sense in addressing Marsh's responses....I've been censored already once
this year.

jko

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:4f724b65$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[pjsp...@aol.com]

The exhibits purportedly showing as much fail to prove it. And ask
yourself: is it a coincidence this information was received by letter,
and not sworn testimony?

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Scalice was a hired gun, and the FBI's top expert, Bonebrake, refused to
sign off on his conclusions. If he found the matches, moreover, why didn't
he publish an exhibit showing them, so others could judge? When you google
Scalice, finally, you find that this supposedly top fingerprint expert
later presented himself as a handwriting expert, in order to sell the
public Vince Foster's letter was a forgery.

Do you believe Foster's letter was a forgery? No? Then you can't swear by
Scalice.

[Reserch]

"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4f7081bf$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4f6e2e37$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> On 3/24/2012 10:17 AM, James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>> Attached is the DPD latents of Oswald's fingertips....to understand some
>>> of the controversy read VB's section of RH where he mentions the FBI's
>>> visit to the morgue to take prints. I'm heading to the FBI fingerprint
>>> lab in West Virgiina and to the DC office, next month to address some
>>> issues, with them. My request to the FBI on the fingerprints conflicts
>>> is now over 11 years old. (Sept 2001 FOIA request).
>>>
>>> BTW VB did a great "one sided" job on this issue....but ignored the
>>> major
>>> aspects of consideration.
>>>
>>> One of the major issue, concerning the recorded latents of Oswald, is
>>> the
>>> fact that the DPD did not make a Master Case Print record of LHO, nor
>>> did
>>> the FBI request them to do so. The FBI however did request a Master
>>> Case
>>> Print record to be done on Ruby.

That is another funny point. They didn't take notes. They didn't
fingerprint. Huh! What police procedure did they follow? The FBI was right
there during the questioning but they didn't take any notes or prints
either? It seems to me that is evidence they knew they would need in the
future. But nobody has that? Humm.

>>>
>>> ***MCP record the edges of the hand as well as the sides of the fingers
>>> (about 30 latents on fingers alone).
>>>
>>> The only legal grounds for the FBI visit, is to obtain "deadman's
>>> record"
>>> of Oswald's hands (Oswald's murder was a state of Texas issue, not
>>> Federal) is to obtain a MCP record of Oswald, to be used in the JFK
>>> case.

Had they done their job by procedure they would not have had to make a late
night visit. And there would not be a contraversity. Very slack. Really not
up to FBI standards.

>>> My first thoughts on the FBI visit were that the FBI went there to get a
>>> MCP record of Oswald. If this is the case they never released these
>>> images, nor have I been able to find them at the Archives.
>>>
>>> My second thoughts on the issue is that the "under the scopic sight"
>>> latent is Ruby's or anothers who handled the rifle in a manner that
>>> indicates "firing".
>>>
>>> For those that do not know the details....The "palmprint" on the barrel
>>> is not the "under the scopic sight" latent discoverd by Day. There are
>>> AT
>>> LEAST TWO PALMPRINTS on the rifle barrel....one Oswald's and the other
>>> the in my opinion the shooter.
>>>
>>> The WC was deeply concerned that the known palmprint on the barrel was
>>> "planted" by (????) at the morgue. This controversy is "basically
>>> addressed" in the WC report. The planting possibility is
>>> there.....however the "under the scopic sight" latent is NEVER
>>> MENTIONED,
>>> except by Lt. Day in his testimony, it is a far greater issue, since
>>> exclusion of the "under the scopic sight" is a major consideration of
>>> valid exculpatory evidence, that Oswald did not fire the rifle. No one
>>> can claim Oswald fired the rifle until any controversy concerning the
>>> "under the scopic sight" latent is identified. This latent, in my
>>> opinion, is the "reasonable doubt" which is why it has been handled as
>>> it has been.

This was the purpose of the question. Even though everybody has an opinion,
nobody seems to know the actual names of the officiers or agents. They just
want a chance to aggravate someone else with their own personal views.
Pretty much everybody believes there were officers or agents taking prints,
but who? That was the question! What official office was it? Nobody knows!
And nobody can site?

>
> Tony.....you asked for the latents taken and I provided what is a matter
> of record. What the FBI obtained is NOT available. It can only be assumed
> based on the amount of "ink" left on Oswald's hands, they made a MCP
> record, which is a record they did not have and needed.
>

> The funeral home director said there
>> was ink on his hands that he had to remove. Some chimed in that maybe the
>> cops or someone needed his palm prints because they had not taken them
>> when Oswald was alive and only realized they needed them for comparison
>> when Lt. Day found a partial palm print on the barrel.

> The DPD did not make any palm print record of Oswald at the funreal home,
> the did exactly as established by proceedure...they made the palmprints
> during his booking process. It's also part of the offical records and
> posting it serves no purpose to post them, the exhibits of the palmprints
> include WCE 628 and WCE 629.

Seems to me that is what happened. "Someone" did take latent prints "THE DAY
PALMPRINT" used at a later date. Day already had a palmprint off the boxes.
So why wouldn't Day have taken prints while Oswald was in custody?
Then covered their tracks with ink prints. Had the barrel been oily, there
wouldn't be any prints. Cause the oil in the print would be absorbed by the
barrel oil.
But Day needed a barrel print to prove Oswald had the rifle. And planted the
evidence in the file. That's why he didn't have a print to turn over to the
FBI. At that time there was none. And suddenly after the rifle was back in
Day's hands he had a print. It wouldn't be allowed in court. But public
opinion is court is it?

[Anthony Marsh]

Just ignore Olmstead. The police DID take Oswald's fingerprints. The
police did take notes of the interrogation. We have these now. Olmstead
makes up a lot of things from his imagination.

Some of know the names and have talked to them. Oswald's prints were found
on the rifle. Why shouldn't they be? It was his damn rifle. I bet we could
find your fingerprints on your car. Because it's your car. If someone
steals it to rob a bank we can't convict you of robbing the bank just
because your fingerprints are all over the car.

>>
>> Tony.....you asked for the latents taken and I provided what is a matter
>> of record. What the FBI obtained is NOT available. It can only be assumed
>> based on the amount of "ink" left on Oswald's hands, they made a MCP
>> record, which is a record they did not have and needed.
>>
>> The funeral home director said there
>>> was ink on his hands that he had to remove. Some chimed in that maybe the
>>> cops or someone needed his palm prints because they had not taken them
>>> when Oswald was alive and only realized they needed them for comparison
>>> when Lt. Day found a partial palm print on the barrel.
>> The DPD did not make any palm print record of Oswald at the funreal home,
>> the did exactly as established by proceedure...they made the palmprints
>> during his booking process. It's also part of the offical records and
>> posting it serves no purpose to post them, the exhibits of the palmprints
>> include WCE 628 and WCE 629.
> Seems to me that is what happened. "Someone" did take latent prints "THE DAY
> PALMPRINT" used at a later date. Day already had a palmprint off the boxes.
> So why wouldn't Day have taken prints while Oswald was in custody?
> Then covered their tracks with ink prints. Had the barrel been oily, there
> wouldn't be any prints. Cause the oil in the print would be absorbed by the
> barrel oil.

How is the bottom of the barrel going to be "oily" whatever you think
that means?

[James K. Olmstead]

"Reserch" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f74...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>

Reserch: VB interviewed the FBI agents who took the prints of LHO at the
morgue. Their names are in his book "Reclaiming History". Although I
have a great deal of interest in all the fingerprint conflicts and discuss
my work....you really need to do some "research" on this issue in greater
detail before you make some of your comments like the one below:

> This was the purpose of the question. Even though everybody has an
> opinion, nobody seems to know the actual names of the officiers or agents.
> They just want a chance to aggravate someone else with their own personal
> views. Pretty much everybody believes there were officers or agents taking
> prints, but who? That was the question! What official office was it?
> Nobody knows! And nobody can site?

Read "Reclaiming History" before further discussion ok? My work counter's
VB on this issue.

jko

[James K. Olmstead]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:4f74...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Tony: you are responding to somebody else.....I provided the images and the
grounds behind the incident.

You seem to have a probem here I'm not the one who wrote what you are
responding to.

>On 3/29/2012 9:50 AM, Reserch wrote:<

Perhaps you should read the post before responding

jko

[Reserch]

<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:365e5296-032c-4a06...@n19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

All these post and NOBODY can name the officiers or agents. I don't think
any of you know what the question is, much less the answers. You all have
set yourselves up as authorties. Self appointment. But when it comes down to
it you don't know. Put up or shut the hell up!

[Anthony Marsh]

You expect us to have videotape of the FBI secretly fingerprinting the
dead Oswald?

>
>