JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 203)


ASSORTED
ASSASSINATION
DISCUSSIONS:


=================================================

E-Mail Subject: The SBT
Date: 4/7/2008
From: Patrick Collins
To: David Von Pein


---------------------------------

Do you think [Dale] Myers got it right? It strikes me that he has gone
out of his way to be as accurate as possible in his model. I am not
sure that I agree with him on the lapel flip indicating the precise
point in time of the SBT strike.

It strikes me that the lapel would have moved several frames earlier--
I don't have the Z frames with me at work, but if I recall correctly, JFK's
arm movement / response is already underway at the time of the lapel flip.

=================================================

E-Mail Subject: RE: The SBT
Date: 4/7/2008
From: David Von Pein
To: Patrick Collins


---------------------------------

JFK's arms don't begin to rise until Z226. Of course, we have to also
keep in mind that the damn sign is in the way, blocking JFK until
Z224. We can't even see any part of JFK until Z224 in fact.

So the argument can be made (and has been made, of course) that
Kennedy could have been "reacting" prior to Z224. Nobody can prove
beyond all doubt that he wasn't (unless somebody's invented a way to
see through a metal freeway sign).

But there have also been measurements taken (as much as can be done
with a 2-dimensional film like Mr. Z's) that indicate JFK's right hand
actually DROPS a little between 224 and 225....then his arms go upward
at 226, which would be perfectly consistent with the President having
been hit at exactly Z224:






But, IMO, Z224 is spot-on "SBT" perfect in several different ways. Here's why.

DVP

=================================================

E-Mail Subject: The Oswald palm print and Paul [Groody's] story
Date: 2/22/2008
From: Patrick Collins
To: David Von Pein


---------------------------------

Have you any idea when this alleged Oswald palm print in the mortuary
story came out -- was it recently?

I was under the impression it was just rumor and conjecture, but it
seems this guy Paul [Groody] has a story to tell. I doubt it happened,
but even if it did, I don't think it says much more than that the FBI
weren't past a bit of evidence fudging.

=================================================

E-Mail Subject: RE: Oswald palm print
Date: 2/22/2008
From: David Von Pein
To: Patrick Collins


---------------------------------

I've seen Groody tell his tale on TV (TMWKK I think...or some similar
pro-conspiracy program).

It's a bit disturbing I suppose, but I'm guessing that NO PRINTS
were taken off Oswald in the morgue at all. That just seems so
incredibly silly and unneeded.

Even if the authorities DID want to further "cement" LHO's guilt, they
still had the popcorn trail left by Oswald himself...plus the
rifle...plus the Tippit murder evidence and witnesses...plus all the
lies Oz told to the nation on TV and to the police before he was
killed (the "curtain rod" lie leaps out as a key falsehood, plus
others).

There was simply NO REASON for the Feds to even WANT to take the
risk of getting prints off Oswald after he died.

My guess is that (possibly) the ink on LHO's hands that Groody saw was
the remains of the ink that Oswald had on him when he was processed for
prints two days earlier.

I don't know how long residue like that remains on the hands...but
that sounds more logical to me than believing that the Feds marched
into the morgue (in view of Groody or whoever else) and took prints
off the dead Lee Harvey Oswald -- and then were stupid enough to NOT
CLEAN OFF OSWALD'S HANDS! LOL.

Anyway, just my $0.02.

David Von Pein
February/April 2008


==================================


ADDENDUM #1
REGARDING
OSWALD'S PRINTS:



DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm still dubious about whether the FBI took any prints off of Lee Harvey Oswald's body after his death, but Vincent Bugliosi did think that prints were taken off of LHO at Miller's Funeral Home in Fort Worth on November 25, 1963.

[Quoting from Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History", starting on page 413 of endnotes....]

"Although I could find no FBI report indicating it, the FBI probably did, in fact, take Oswald’s prints at Miller Funeral Home on the morning of November 25, 1963. Even though the Dallas Police Department already had two sets of Oswald’s prints...and the authorities also had earlier prints of his, in a case of this enormous magnitude it would be very understandable that they would take them once again to make double and triple sure they had everything they would possibly need.

Moreover, it appears the FBI itself did not have its own set of Oswald’s prints, and during this period immediately following the assassination, it is well known that each of the various law enforcement agencies was trying to shift blame for the assassination away from itself to the others, and hence, did not want to rely on anyone other than itself.

Although, as indicated, I could find no report of Oswald’s prints being taken, fingerprint cards are reproduced in the Warren Commission volumes on Oswald, indicating prints were taken of him on November 25, 1963, after he died, though no block on the cards indicates where they were taken. Also, it is ambiguous as to what agency took the prints. Although the cards are FBI cards, the “contributor” is listed as “Chief, Police Department, Dallas.” (CE 630, 633-A, 645, 17 H 285, 287, 294)

The ambiguity is not clarified in the Warren Commission testimony of Sebastian Latona, the supervisor of the Latent Fingerprint Section of the Identification Division of the FBI. Referring to the November 25 fingerprints of Oswald as a “second submission,” he said that only fingerprints of Oswald, not palm prints, were taken, but he does not say by whom or where (4 H 6–7; CE 630, 17 H 285).

When author David Lifton interviewed Paul Groody, the funeral director at Miller Funeral Home, on July 29, 1980, and asked him if the FBI had taken Oswald's prints at the morgue, he responded, "Oh, yes, yes, I was there. That's exactly what they did. I was not in the room at the time, but I had to clean up his fingers after they got through fingerprinting him. They put black gook on his fingers, and they [couldn't] get it off, so they [left] it up to me to clean his fingers off. So they did fingerprint him."

When Lifton asked if Oswald had ink on his palms too, Groody said, "It was a complete mess of his entire hand, which would lead me to believe that they did take prints of his palms." Groody said the fingerprinting took about half an hour and took place sometime between when he completed the embalming at 1:30 a.m. and 5:00 in the morning of November 25.

So if we're to believe Groody, FBI agents apparently took Oswald's prints. Did they bring the Carcano with them? Groody told author David Lifton that the agents never had a "rifle or a rifle barrel" with them (Lifton, 'Best Evidence', p.356). Oliver Stone, of course, never gave his audience any of the above information. All his audience saw was some member of law enforcement planting Oswald's palm print on the rifle.

One may ask why I would cite Lifton as a source for this information when I have virtually laughed at his theory about the Kennedy assassination. That's missing the point. I have found Lifton to be perhaps the most meticulous researcher in the conspiracy community. It's the totally unbelievable inferences he has drawn from his research that I have attacked.

So not only common sense, but also all the available evidence shows that the agents who took Oswald's prints did not bring his Carcano out to the funeral home.

Assuming that Groody was right about the time he saw FBI agents at the morgue (between 1:30 and 5:00 in the morning), other FBI agents may have gone to the morgue that day, not at night, but later in the morning, again however, without taking Oswald's Carcano with them. The reason I say this is that Gary Mack, who gave birth to the story, says he has personally seen television news footage on WBAP, the NBC affiliate in Dallas-Fort Worth, of two FBI agents walking into the funeral home on the morning of November 25, and he told me, "One was carrying a small bag about the size of a crime lab kit and the other was carrying a camera. Neither was carrying a rifle" (Telephone interview of Gary Mack by author on February 21, 2000).

Jack Mosely, a reporter at the time for the Fort Worth Press, an afternoon daily, was at the Miller Funeral Home on the twenty-fifth, and wrote for his paper that day that "an FBI team, with a camera and a crime lab kit, spent a long time in the morgue." Mosely, now the editor of the Fort Smith, Arkansas, Southwest Times Record, told me the FBI agents arrived at the morgue "somewhere between eight and nine in the morning, though I could be a little off on this."

When I asked Mosely to elaborate on what he saw outside the funeral home on November 25, 1963, he said that by "FBI team" he only meant "two agents." He added that many members of the local and national press were there when the two agents arrived. Did they carry any rifle or rifle barrel into the funeral home? "No, they did not carry any rifle or rifle barrel with them into the funeral home." What did he mean by their having "spent a long time in the morgue"? "Oh, about twenty to thirty minutes," he said. I asked him about the size of the crime lab kit he had seen one of the agents carry in. "It was a very small lab kit, about six by ten inches. No way on earth could anyone have put a rifle or disassembled rifle into that little bag or kit. There's no merit at all to the rifle story."

Mosely told me he heard someone say at the time that the agents were there to "get Oswald's fingerprints." (Telephone interview of Jack Mosely by author, March 20, 2000)

Although I was never able to ascertain, for sure, the identity of the FBI agents who took Oswald's prints at the morgue, I believe I was able to identify the agents who went to the morgue in the morning but who may or may not have been (depending on the accuracy of Groody's recollection as to time) the same ones who took Oswald's prints: Robley Madland, Malon Jennings, and possibly Tom Carter (deceased).

Madland told me they arrived "around nine to ten in the morning." Jennings could only recall it was in the morning. Madland said the sole purpose of going to the morgue was to take photos of Oswald's left wrist where he cut himself during his suicide attempt in Moscow. But Madland said, "If he cut himself, it was not a serious suicide attempt because there were no visible scars." (Of course, Oswald had already been embalmed, and his skin being almost white with all the blood removed from his body, the scar may not have been so visible. Moreover, we know from Oswald's autopsy report that he had a "transverse one and three-quarter inch slightly raised white scar on the volar aspect of the left wrist" that the medical examiner, Dr. Earl Forrest Rose, concluded "might possibly be associated with a suicide attempt.") (CE 2778, 26 H 161)

When I asked Madland about the taking of Oswald's fingerprints at the morgue, he said Oswald's prints "may have been taken" but he didn't think so. As to the taking of Oswald's rifle or any other rifle out to the morgue, he said, "No. Who came up with a story like that?"

Jennings told me Oswald's prints "probably were taken" but he couldn't remember for sure, though he clearly remembers the taking of photos. As to taking Oswald's rifle or any other rifle to the morgue, he said, "Of course not." Jennings only recalled going to the morgue with Madland. Madland recalls going there with Jennings and Carter. (Telephone interviews of Robley Madland and Malon Jennings by author on April 5, 2000)

Neither Madland nor Jennings worked in the fingerprint section of the FBI, and Madland recalls that Carter didn't either, this fact suggesting that perhaps two separate teams of FBI agents went to the morgue on the day in question.

In summary, we don't know if Groody and Mosely were talking about the same FBI agents (either Groody or Mosely, looking back many years later, may have simply forgotten the time of day when the agents were at the morgue), or whether there were two sets of agents who went to the morgue. But one thing is clear. There is absolutely no evidence to support what Oliver Stone showed his audience—a man, presumably an FBI agent, putting Oswald's palm print on his rifle at the morgue."
-- Vincent Bugliosi

[End "Reclaiming History" Book Quotes.]

------------------------

Also see 8 HSCA 385, which indicates that the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald seen in CE630 were taken on "November 22, 1963", and not on November 25.

I tend to disagree with Mr. Bugliosi on this particular topic. I think Vince overlooked the date shown at the top of 8 HSCA 385, and Vince also might not have realized the significance of the words "Refused To Sign" that are typed on the fingerprint card seen in CE630 and on page 385 of HSCA Volume 8. Those words -- "Refused To Sign" -- almost assuredly mean that Lee Oswald was ALIVE, and not dead at a funeral home in Fort Worth, when those fingerprints were taken off of Oswald's hands.

David Von Pein
July 13, 2015
August 16, 2015


==================================


ADDENDUM #2
REGARDING
OSWALD'S PRINTS:



HENRY SIENZANT SAID:

David,

Pages 387 & 388 of 8HSCA is a DPD form. It is signed by Hicks and is signed (on the back and front) by Oswald. It is dated 11/22/63. It is CE627. Note the "Police Department, Dallas, Texas" at the bottom of the first page. Clearly Oswald wasn't refusing to sign a fingerprint card on 11/22/63.

Pages 385 and 386 of 8HSCA is an FBI form, a totally different form, and is dated 11/25/63. It is CE630. It notes Oswald was shot and killed on 11/24/63, consistent with the date of 11/25/63 on the opposite page. Note that form is also stamped "DECEASED" in six different places. The testimony of Latona is consistent with this: "The second submission was made, I believe, in order to advise us formally that the subject, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been killed, and it has the notation on the back that he was shot and killed 11-24-63 while being transferred in custody."

That Latona was able to infer that conclusion from the info on the card is more evidence that Oswald was already dead. He was certainly more familiar with the way FBI cards would appear than you or I. It was his judgment that CE630 was submitted after Oswald's death, to confirm said death. From Groody we learn that the FBI did fingerprint Oswald on 11/25/63, we learn from Bugliosi's interviews that FBI agents did visit the morgue that night, and from Latona's testimony and from CE630 we learn that fingerprints of Oswald were taken after he was deceased. I think that pretty much wraps it up with a neat little bow just in time for Christmas.

The "refused to sign" is the sticking point, but I've seen stilted language in other FBI reports. The one that sticks out in my mind is the FBI report noting "surgery of the head area" instead of just saying "there was a massive hole in the president's head". I think you'll agree that the notation of "surgery" doesn't imply a pre-autopsy procedure that Lifton infers from that language. The "refused to sign" notation might be just more of that stilted language... and FBI code for any failure or inability to sign. Otherwise everything aligns on the side of the FBI visit to the morgue to fingerprint Oswald.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hank,

Thanks for your input on this CE630 fingerprint card matter. You could very well be right and I could be wrong on this. But the two things that give me pause are those items I mentioned previously---

1.) The date ("November 22, 1963") which appears at the top of 8 HSCA 385. So it seems as though the HSCA had some info that would indicate those prints were taken on "Nov. 22" and not Nov. 25. And next to the Nov. 22 date, that HSCA page also says that the fingerprints seen on that page are "Photographs of fingerprint forms of the Dallas Police Department. Location: FBI". That would certainly seem to indicate that at least the HSCA was of the opinion those fingerprints seen on that fingerprint card were placed there by a member of the DPD, not the FBI.

2.) And those words "Refused to sign". Why not just use that "DECEASED" stamp one additional time in that box? Stamping "DECEASED" or "COULD NOT SIGN" in that box seems much more logical than typing "Refused to sign". As I mentioned to CT clown David Healy in this earlier post, the word "Refused" certainly would (or should) indicate that Oswald had a CHOICE of whether to sign that fingerprint card or not. But if he was already dead, of course no such choice could be afforded or extended to Mr. Oswald.

Plus.....

There's a third thing written on that CE630 fingerprint card which is also indicative of the prints being taken by the DPD and not by the FBI. It says this in the box marked "Contributor and Address":

"CHIEF
POLICE DEPARTMENT
DALLAS, TEXAS"


Now, I suppose that somebody from the DPD might have gone out to the funeral home in Fort Worth on 11/25/63 at the request of "Contributor" Jesse Curry, the Chief of the DPD, in order to aid the FBI in getting the dead Oswald's prints. But if Vince Bugliosi's suspicions are correct, I doubt that the FBI would want any DPD man along at all. Bugliosi said:

"It appears the FBI itself did not have its own set of Oswald's prints, and during this period immediately following the assassination, it is well known that each of the various law enforcement agencies was trying to shift blame for the assassination away from itself to the others, and hence, did not want to rely on anyone other than itself." -- VB

But, then too, to add still more confusion to this matter, we have the information that appears in the 1993 book "JFK: First Day Evidence", as provided by Pat Speer HERE.

And then after Speer posted that info about how Livingston and Hicks of the DPD took Oswald's prints "while his body lay in the morgue at Parkland Hospital Sunday night" — [~big shrug~] — I came back with the following comments (which, IMO, are pretty hard to fight)....

[Quote On:]

"Pat,

I'm still scratching my head about the "Refused To Sign" remark if the prints seen in CE630 were really taken on 11/25/63. And the HSCA doesn't seem to think the CE630 prints were taken on 11/25 either.

~big shrug~

And the fingerprint card signed by J.B. Hicks is dated 11-22-63. It is seen in CE627.

Did Hicks take Oswald's prints twice? He sure as heck never said a word in his Warren Commission testimony about fingerprinting Lee Oswald after he was killed. Hicks said he fingerprinted Oswald in Captain Fritz' office at the DPD....

Mr. BALL -- "Where were you when you took the prints?"

Mr. HICKS -- "I was in Captain Fritz' office. In other words, I made those on an inkless pad. That's a pad we use for fingerprinting people without the black ink that they make for the records."


Hicks also said this.....

Mr. BALL -- "Did you do anything else with respect to the investigation?"

Mr. HICKS -- "I don't recall anything outstanding that I did in the investigation further there. Now, I know we were all pretty well busy there until about 2 or 2:30 in the morning but most of it was, I would imagine regular office work and just back and forth if someone had asked did we get a picture of this and picture of that; well, I can't recall any other particular item that I might have done."


Why wouldn't Hicks have told the Warren Commission that he had fingerprinted Oswald in the morgue [or at the Fort Worth funeral home] if he really had done so and if it was merely "a routine assignment for the Crime Lab", as it says in the book "First Day Evidence"?"
-- DVP; July 2015

[End Quote.]

So, IMO, there's definitely some room for doubt about when and where those fingerprints were taken that we see in Commission Exhibit No. 630. There are certainly some indications that somebody DID take Oswald's prints off of his dead hands while he was lying at the funeral home in Fort Worth on November 25th. But there are also a few reasons to think maybe that did NOT happen, as I have pointed out above.

So I don't know what the answer is for sure. But I do know this --- Oliver Stone was dishing up a big fat lie in his 1991 movie when he filmed a sinister scene showing somebody placing a rifle into the dead hand of Lee Harvey Oswald. Because THAT activity most certainly never happened.

David Von Pein
December 7, 2015