And that's good enough for you? Really? Hoover said "examiners"--plural--had done so. But Liebeler said it was just Latona. What's going on?
And if it was Latona, why didn't he say a word about barrel irregularities supposedly appearing in the lift in his very extensive WC testimony? Did this important matching factor slip his mind?
At some point do not these endless contradictory stories give you pause?
Yes, that's good enough for me. Latona was the chief examiner. Whenever we say that the latent palm print was identified as being Oswald's, it's always that Latona made the match. Even though Mandella also made the match. On the lift card , you can see "a.m. 9-17-64". We can safely assume that the a.m. being Arthur Mandella. That shows that Mandella handled the lift around the same period that the positive match with the barrel was made. About a week later.
Latona wasn't asked about barrel irregularities. He was asked about whether the print was Oswald's or not.
Where is the contradiction? I don't see it.
Huh? The points of identity would have been the ulnar loops, ridge flows, principal lines, wrinkle features, and delta-point features from the palm. He said nothing about irregularities from the barrel also appearing in the lift. And he only matched five points, well below the minimum needed for a credible identification.
How is it possible that you can be so confused? You still continue to conflate two separate issues. This is the third or fourth time you've done so here. The palm print characteristics and the barrel irregularities are not the same thing. The points of identity matching the lift to the barrel would not have been the ulnar loops, ridge flows, principal lines, wrinkle features, and delta-point features from the palm. Those are palm print characteristics. None of those were left on the barrel. Day had lifted them entirely so that no trace of them remained. While five matching points of identity is below the minimum needed for a credible identification of a fingerprint or palm print, it obvious was enough for Scalice to make his positive match of the lift to the barrel.
And, pray tell, what "irregularities" would there be on the part of the rifle barrel that is protected by the stock? No one could even touch that part of the barrel unless they removed the stock.
Please stop asking me stupid questions.
Yeah, strange that his "identification" was not included in the HSCA volumes, hey? Six points--you need at least 10--many experts say 12--for a credible match.
Scalice's identification was included in the the HSCA Volumes and you dismiss that. Why would Kirk's identification being included be any different? Five points of identification was sufficient for Scalice to make his match. Six points of identification is over and above.
And none of this deals with the issue *how* the print supposedly got on the barrel.
Obviously, Oswald had disassembled the rifle sometime before his disassembling of it on Nov 21-Nov 22. Why is this stuff so hard for you?
Uh-huh. It's not like the FBI didn't blow off the DPD whenever they felt like it. Why did the DPD want the rifle back only to hand it over again on the 26th? Why would the FBI have bothered sending it back when they were going to get it back two days later? Let me guess: None of this strikes you as the least bit odd.
I already addressed that. The DPD wanted it all back because they were primarily responsible for the investigations of the crimes. The FBI sent it back because they had agreed to do so. They didn't know that they would be getting it back two days later.
Which means there was ample time to take one of the fresh palmprint lifts and transfer it to the rifle's barrel before the rifle was handed back to the FBI on the 26th.
LOL...What?? How would that be done exactly and has it ever been successfully done?
Or, they could have taken a different rifle, pressed his hand against it, and lifted that print.
They? Who were They? And what would be the point of placing Oswald's hand on a different rifle? The lift with Oswald's palm print wasn't matched to a different rifle. It was matched to the barrel of Oswald's rifle. The one that he had purchased from Klein's Sporting Goods though mail order. The same rifle that he had himself photographed holding.
I'll take Hurt's recorded interviews with Drain in 1983 and 1984 over Drain's chapter in Sneed's 2002 book. Moreover, Drain's later statement does not address Day's repeated claim that he told Drain about the print and also showed it to him when he gave him the rifle.
I'd have to listen to those recordings myself before offering my opinion on them. Where can they be listened to? For now, I'll continue to assume that Larry Sneed himself is an honest individual. Hurt is a bit of a loon. I still get a kick out of how he described the three shots that Oswald got off in Dealey Plaza.
