CE 637 The so called "palm Print"

[Walt Cakebread]

 CE 637 is a photo  that allegedly shows  the so called "palm print" on the bottom of the barrel. DPD Detective Lt  Day swore that the lift on the 3 X 5 card came from the bottom of the 5/8 inch diameter barrel.  But the photo clearly shows area on the bottom of the WOODEN foregrip of a model 91 /38 Mannlicher carcano.    The bayonet slot that is cut into the wooden foregrip is clearly visible in the photo. This slot was cut into the wooden foregrip to allow the blade of the bayonet to be folded back into the foregrip.  ( like the blade of a pocket knife) There is NOTHING on the metal barrel that could have caused those two parallel lines that are clearly visible in the photo ( CE 637)

Since we know that the cellophane tape on the exhibit CE 637 is 1 inch wide we can use that dimension to find that the distance between the  two parallel lines at the right hand side of the photo is slightly more than 3/16 of an inch.   (The width of the bayonet slot in the wooden foregrip of a model 91 / 38 Mannlicher Carcano is 3 /16 of an inch. ) Those parallel lines verify that the lift came from the wooden foregrip of a carcano, and NOT from the metal barrel.   Referring to the prior measurement of based on the 1 inch wide tape ....   If a 1 inch wide tape was placed on a 5 /8 inch diameter barrel....the tape would wrap half way around the barrel   

[Walt Cakebread]

CE 637 is a photo  that allegedly shows  the so called "palm print" on the bottom of the barrel. DPD Detective Lt  Day swore that the lift on the 3 X 5 card came from the bottom of the 5/8 inch diameter barrel.  But the photo clearly shows area on the bottom of the WOODEN foregrip of a model 91 /38 Mannlicher carcano.    The bayonet slot that is cut into the wooden foregrip is clearly visible in the photo. This slot was cut into the wooden foregrip to allow the blade of the bayonet to be folded back into the foregrip.  ( like the blade of a pocket knife) There is NOTHING on the metal barrel that could have caused those two parallel lines that are clearly visible in the photo ( CE 637)

Since we know that the cellophane tape on the exhibit CE 637 is 1 inch wide we can use that dimension to find that the distance between the  two parallel lines at the right hand side of the photo is slightly more than 3/16 of an inch.   (The width of the bayonet slot in the wooden foregrip of a model 91 / 38 Mannlicher Carcano is 3 /16 of an inch. ) Those parallel lines verify that the lift came from the wooden foregrip of a carcano, and NOT from the metal barrel.   Referring to the prior measurement of based on the 1 inch wide tape ....   If a 1 inch wide tape was placed on a 5 /8 inch diameter barrel....the tape would wrap half way around the barrel   

Lt Day described the place where he allegedly found the print on the barrel of the carcano.    Day told the WC that he spotted a print on the SIDE OF THE METAL BARREL  about three inches back from the muzzle end of the wooden stock.  He said that this discovery led to his decision to disassemble the rifle.  He said that when he disassembled the rifle he found an old dried out print on the BOTTOM of the barrel.  (FBI finger print expert,  Latona testified that an old print is difficult to lift and will not lift completely.   Latona said that an old print would probably  continue to adhere to the barrel .....  But when he examined the rifle there wasn't a trace of a print on the barrel , nor was there any indication that that area of the rifle had been processed for prints.   There wasn't even a trace of finger print powder.

[Jack Trojan]

I've always said that the fingerprint evidence, or lack there of, is the smoking gun here. That and the way the DPD handled the crime scene and the evidence.

Of course Day was complicit if he was tasked to examine the rifle for prints. The DPD knew there weren't prints on the rifle so they had to assign Day to deal with that. But that also went for all the evidence and how it was handled. CE 637 is just another brick in the wall.

However, no LNer is going to succumb to your deductive reasoning regarding the palm print. You are dealing with an image of an alleged print, which could show anything Day & company wanted. You can't trust any evidence that was submitted by the conspirators, even if it's a smoking gun because inconsistencies and contradictions can never amount to proof.

What we need is the dermatoglyphic analysis that positively identified Oswald's palm print. If it shows a fake match then that's incriminating but not proof. If it shows a legit match then that's also incriminating considering Day's handling of the evidence, but not proof. Either way, we need to see the actual evidence and analysis before concluding anything. Otherwise, analyzing a low res image of CE 637 proves nothing and will convince no one.

You would be better served experimenting with your own MC and try to reproduce the alleged palm print the way you claimed Day must have to prove your point and advance your claims.

[Walt Cakebread]

I've always said that the fingerprint evidence, or lack there of, is the smoking gun here. That and the way the DPD handled the crime scene and the evidence.

Of course Day was complicit if he was tasked to examine the rifle for prints. The DPD knew there weren't prints on the rifle so they had to assign Day to deal with that. But that also went for all the evidence and how it was handled. CE 637 is just another brick in the wall.

However, no LNer is going to succumb to your deductive reasoning regarding the palm print. You are dealing with an image of an alleged print, which could show anything Day & company wanted. You can't trust any evidence that was submitted by the conspirators, even if it's a smoking gun because inconsistencies and contradictions can never amount to proof.

What we need is the dermatoglyphic analysis that positively identified Oswald's palm print. If it shows a fake match then that's incriminating but not proof. If it shows a legit match then that's also incriminating considering Day's handling of the evidence, but not proof. Either way, we need to see the actual evidence and analysis before concluding anything. Otherwise, analyzing a low res image of CE 637 proves nothing and will convince no one.

You would be better served experimenting with your own MC and try to reproduce the alleged palm print the way you claimed Day must have to prove your point and advance your claims.

You would be better served experimenting with your own MC and try to reproduce the alleged palm print

Jack, You don't  seem to comprehend that there's not one tiny atom of doubt in my mind that the so called "palm print" is a damned lie that was created by the DP and the FBI.   The reason that I'm 100% certain is because I own a model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano and I know with absoulte certainty that the exhibit CE 637 is a picture of the WOODEN foregrip of a model 91 /38 carcano. .... There's no doubt about it.   The picture is NOT of a print on the metal barrel .


Recently a friend stopped by my home and he saw a photo copy of CE 637 laying in front of my computer....He asked what it was,    ( he has no interest in the assassination)   I told him that it was a picture of a portion of a manlicher carcano like the one I have standing near the computer.  I asked him if he could find the place on my rifle that matched the picture ( CE 637)    It took him about 30 seconds to spot the bayonet slot in the wooden foregrip and match it with the photo.

[Zeon Mason]

Do we need to find a dead corpse and prove that it is possible to take a palm print from the hand?

Since there was NO trace of any print found by FBI and NO photo of any so called trace left as Day claims, then it is entirely possible that a print taken from the dead hand onto a piece of tape could be easily submitted as having been a "lift" from the rifle barrel?

Am I missing something that makes this impossible?

[Walt Cakebread]

Do we need to find a dead corpse and prove that it is possible to take a palm print from the hand?

Since there was NO trace of any print found by FBI and NO photo of any so called trace left as Day claims, then it is entirely possible that a print taken from the dead hand onto a piece of tape could be easily submitted as having been a "lift" from the rifle barrel?

Am I missing something that makes this impossible?

Do we need to find a dead corpse and prove that it is possible to take a palm print from the hand?

No, a live corpse would be better.....  But they are hard to find.    Most LNer's are brain dead, but that doesn't mean they are a corpse.