3 x 5 Index Card that is item # 14 On the List

[Walt Cakebread]

As I’ve mentioned previously, none of this depends on concocting a silly story about a palm print being released on 11/22 via an undated evidence list.

John can you determine what this word is:....Misissippi ?  I know it requires speculation,and conjecture, but I think you can figger it out.

[John Iacoletti]

Get rid of every letter and you’re still coming up with Mississippi.  Because “common sense”.

[Walt Cakebread]

Get rid of every letter and you’re still coming up with Mississippi.  Because “common sense”.

Let's see, I'll get rid of every letter....      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _   That looks like  J_o_h_n  I_a_c_o_l_e_t_t_i....   But who knows ?   

[John Iacoletti]

Let's see, I'll get rid of every letter....      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _   That looks like  J_o_h_n  I_a_c_o_l_e_t_t_i....   But who knows ?   

Exactly. You could make up a story about what an all-blanks message says, but that wouldn’t make it true.

And even if you got rid of me, it wouldn’t make your fanciful stories true either.

[John Iacoletti]

Hmm...Let's put that to the test.....  If the sheet is 8.5 inches wide then the tape on the sheet is 2.5 inches wide.   Iacoletti is going to attack you...He said the tape is 2 inches wide....  Hee, hee,hee....

No, Carl Day said the tape was 2 inches wide. You know, the guy who actually made the card?

[Walt Cakebread]

No, Carl Day said the tape was 2 inches wide. You know, the guy who actually made the card?

So you don't doubt that the tape was 2 inches wide....Lt Day said so... and that establishes it as a fact.  Do I have that right John?

Never mind, I'm sure that you won't answer the question... or you'll provide some evasive nonsense.....So let's hear how Mr. Eisenberg described exhibit  CE 637     

Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?
Mr. LATONA. This exhibit Or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.

a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." ------------ the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766,"

[John Iacoletti]

So you don't doubt that the tape was 2 inches wide....Lt Day said so... and that establishes it as a fact.  Do I have that right John?

No, I don’t know how wide the tape is. If you really want to know, then visit the National Archives and look at the damn thing rather than cherry picking the testimony you like.

I’m just pointing out that this is what Carl Day said he used. Day is not Studebaker.

Never mind, I'm sure that you won't answer the question... or you'll provide some evasive nonsense.....So let's hear how Mr. Eisenberg described exhibit  CE 637     

So what? Are you saying that “small white card” necessarily means 3x5? Or are you saying that just because somebody scrawled 11/22/63 on the card, that somehow proves it was actually done on 11/22/63?

[Walt Cakebread]

No, I don’t know how wide the tape is. If you really want to know, then visit the National Archives and look at the damn thing rather than cherry picking the testimony you like.

I’m just pointing out that this is what Carl Day said he used. Day is not Studebaker.

So what? Are you saying that “small white card” necessarily means 3x5? Or are you saying that just because somebody scrawled 11/22/63 on the card, that somehow proves it was actually done on 11/22/63?

Are you saying that “small white card” necessarily means 3x5? 

 Oh. no. Johnny.....That's not What I'm saying........The length of the card is about 1.7 times the width of the card.  So if we assign the width to be 3 inches and multiply that by 1.7 ...We find the length to be 5.1 inches... and comparing the width of the tape  with the width of the card.  We find the the card is roughly three times as wide as the tape ...which means the tape is 1 inch wide....

PS.....  I could be wrong, but I believe that it was you who first assigned the 3 X 5 dimensions to the card.... As I recall you referred to it as a 3 X 5 index card.

I'm not sure that I ever knew the dimensions of an index card prior to your post of a year or two ago.