You still have not read my chapter on the backyard photos in Hasty Judgment, have you? Or did you overlook the fact that I note therein that the Houston Post contacted a photographic expert at Texas Tech University, Dr. Hershel Womack, regarding the DPD backyard rifle prints.
If you would read chapter 5, you would see that I corresponded with Dr. Womack about the backyard rifle photos. I include two of Dr. Womack’s e-mails to me regarding the photos, in which he explained some of the indications of tampering in them.
You stated that the Houston Post acknowledged that the backyard photos show stages of manipulation in the production. In reality, it was just Mary LaFontaine pushing the Conspiracy Buff narrative. Womack said nothing at all about his own examination of the autopsy photos and negative(s). He never said that they showed any signs of fakery or alteration. His comment was only in regards to the matte photograph. Even in his emails to you, he's not giving opinion based on an actual examination of the photos themselves. Nor does he even claim outright that the copies he looked at are fake. He's not even accurately describing the photos. His descriptions sound rather amateurish.
So you are going to rely on one giant appeal to authority? Is that it? I notice that you guys only insist on “trusting the experts” when they say what you want to hear. Do you regard the HSCA acoustical experts with the same slavish reverence? I’m guessing the answer is a big, whopping No.
It is almost as if you guys were born yesterday when it comes to your willingness to gullibly, uncritically accept whatever this or that government-hired expert says—that is, as long as he says what you are determined to believe.
The comparison between the two isn't even close to being apt. The National Academy of Sciences panel had at its disposal all of the material that BRSW had. Their examination of that material was not as rushed and was more thorough. Those who question the authenticity of the backyard photos have never examined the actual photos or the negative(s), or the camera that took them.
Should we take several pages and go through the instances, in the JFK case alone, where government experts goofed, misrepresented their own experiments or the experiments of others, suppressed evidence that did not fit their conclusions, rigged their tests, etc., etc.?
Sure, go ahead.
Yeah, well, after your reply, Mr. Mytton made the ludicrous claim that the backyard photos’ backgrounds are not virtually identical. Mytton might want to start by reading the HSCA PEP’s report, wherein the panel acknowledged that they found only “very small” differences in the background after photogrammetrically measuring them. This is especially telling because the PEP made this observation because outside experts had noted the virtual sameness of the backgrounds, but the panel didn’t bother to explain how in the world photos taken in the alleged manner could have produced backgrounds that were so similar that the variations between them could only be detected by photogrammetric measurement.
Then, perhaps Mytton will address the facts I present in my article “The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos”:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm
The claim that the backyard photos’ backgrounds are not virtually identical is not ludicrous at all. John Mytton has made it plain for all of us to see. None of us need to be photogammetrists in order to see it. It's right there. And not just within the section that bordered in red.
Why don't you send that to Dr Womack and get his opinion on it?
Except for the failure to take a single photo of the print before lifting it—Lt. Day surely knew that such photos would be strong evidence of the print’s presence on the rifle on 11/22. Except for the unexplained delay in getting the print to FBI HQ. Except for Lt. Day’s sworn assertion that the print was still visible on the barrel when he gave the rifle to Drain, whereas Drain stated that Day said nothing about a print on the rifle barrel. Except for the unexplained visit of FBI agents to the funeral home to take prints of Oswald’s fingers and hands—gee, what was that all about? Except for the inexplicable silence of the DPD for several days about finding a palmprint on the rifle, when the DPD rushed to tell journalists about every other piece of seemingly incriminating evidence that they found. Except for the absence of any trace of fingerprint processing on the barrel when Latona examined the rifle on 11/23.
By Day's four month old recollection, signs of the print were still visible on the barrel when he gave it to Drain. Day was mistaken. His recollection was faulty.
Regarding the alleged visit by the FBI to the funeral home, it was a claim made by Paul Groody some three decades after the fact. Groody said that the Agents had left ink all over Oswald's hands. There are a couple of problems with your suggection that the FBI planted Oswald's palm print on the barrel of the rifle then. One, any ink on the lift of the print would not have gone unnoticed by Latona or any of the others who examined it. Two, the FBI had handed the rifle back over to the DPD at 3:40 PM on the 24th. According to Groody, he never even got to the funeral home with the body until around 11 o'clock that night.
I think you might be right. Perhaps the memo was referring to the trigger-guard prints. But, as we’ll see in a moment, Scalice’s statements raise some interesting questions.
Yes, but notice that Scalice could only identify five characteristics/points of identity when he reportedly examined the palmprint itself. The minimum number of matching characteristics for a print identification to be considered positive is 10. Some experts say 12 is the minimum number. Scalice could only find five, which might be why he decided to examine enlarged negatives of the print. But why could Scalice only see five characteristics on the palmprint itself but more on the negatives of the print?
I'll just repost this:
The five points that Scalice identified did not have to do with print identification. They had to do with matching the lift to the barrel of the rifle. Scalice didn't say how many points of identity that he found to make the determination that the palmprint was Oswald's.
And, of course, the palmprint is only valid evidence if it was not planted on the rifle barrel. If the palmprint was planted on the rifle after Oswald was killed, obviously it is worthless as evidence against him, and that’s why the glaring holes in the print’s chain of evidence are so important.
The "palmprint being planted after Oswald was killed" notion is abject quackery, if I may use that term.
I explained that Day had ample time to take 1 or 2 minutes to photograph the most important palmprint he would ever (supposedly) lift. Even if we buy the story that he was being rushed, he, as a senior crime-scene detective, surely could and would have said, “Ok, give me just a minute, because I need to take a photo of this palmprint.” Whoever was supposedly rushing him certainly would have understood the need to photograph the print in situ on the barrel. A rookie cop fresh from the police academy would have known this.
When Lt. Day was asked why he had not made a photograph of the palmprint, he claimed that he had been told by DPD Chief Curry “to go no further with the processing,” which is an unbelievable tale in and of itself. But in an earlier interview with the FBI, Day had claimed that he had not received this instruction from Curry until immediately before the rifle was due to be sent to Washington, more than three hours after he had worked on the prints (26 H 832-833 vs. CE 3145:7). So this “he was rushed” dog just won’t hunt.
“Minor inconsistencies”? “Minor”? He swore the print was still visible when he handed over the rifle. He knew he was supposed to photograph the print before lifting it, and he had ample time to do so. He somehow found the time to photograph the partial prints on the trigger guard, but supposedly just couldn’t squeeze in a minute or two to photograph the much more crucial palmprint. He said he told Drain about the palmprint on the barrel when he gave him the rifle, but Drain said he did not.
Day was told by Curry to go no further with the processing. He had not yet got around to photographing the print. He may have had plenty of time to do so prior to that but he just never got around to doing it. Criticize him all you want for failing to do so but it won't alter the fact the he lifted that print. I believe him. He was an honest man. The "he was rushed" dog hunts very well.
And we should pause to note that even the “we can see the emperor’s new clothes” Warren Commission doubted the authenticity of the palmprint and therefore asked Lt. Day to sign a separate affidavit about his lifting and processing of the print, and that Lt. Day refused to do so.
Day felt no need to sign an affidavit. If he had something else to offer than what he said under oath, or as a clarification or correction, then he would have. Like with his June 1964 affidavit regarding the hulls.
You realize that Agent Drain was in Dallas on 11/26, right? If Drain got the palmprint on 11/26, why did it not get to FBI HQ until 11/29? Every other item on that 11/26 DPD “Property Clerk’s Invoice or Receipt” arrived at FBI HQ the next day, 11/27. But the palmprint did not arrive until 11/29, as even Bugliosi acknowledges.
Again, why the delay? Why were items that were far less incriminating rushed to FBI HQ but not the palmprint? Did Drain need to wait until the FBI agents brought Oswald’s prints back from the funeral home?
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339534/"This is a list of evidence released to the FBI from our crime lab 11-26-63."Drain got the lift of the palm print on Nov 26. Not sure why he held onto it until the 29th. How have you determined that every other item on 11/26 DPD “Property Clerk’s Invoice or Receipt” arrived at FBI HQ the next day, 11/27?
You are aware that Agent Drain told Henry Hurt that he did not believe the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22 but that it was planted, right? (Hurt, Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1985, p. 109)
I am aware that, according to Henry Hurt, Drain told Hurt that he did not believe the palmprint was on the rifle on 11/22. I wasn't aware that he said that he thought it was planted. Are you aware that Agent Drain told Larry Sneed that he believed Day to be an honest man?
