LATENT IMAGE DEVELOPED AND LOST FROM CE139 Jim Olmstead
SA Latona of the FBI, when asked about the rifle presented as used in the assassination (Warren Commission Exhibit 139), stated that "the poor quality of the wood and the metal would cause the rifle to absorb moisture from the skin, thereby making a clear print unlikely." In his testimony before the Commission, SA Latona stated that when he received the rifle, "the area where prints were visible was protected by cellophane." He examined these prints, as well as photographs of them which the Dallas police had made, and concluded that, "...the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value."
The "protected prints" need to be addressed separately; those being the trigger guard latent images. That lift was never introduced into evidence as any exhibit, though CE 637 was. But in this article those prints are not the major issue.
The "no value" issue on each and every developed latent image is a critical concern in this case study. It is an issue of importance to both sides and needs to be addressed in detail in accordance with the latest forensic science available.
New FBI procedures were established in 2001, but they have yet to re-examine the issue of "value" in the Oswald case.
The computer software involved in these latest procedures would in fact, take the issue of establishing value out of the hands of the examiner.
The metal barrel of CE 139 was not as absorbent as it was presented...otherwise CE 637 would not have been recovered. The age of that latent can go as far back as the first time the disassembled rifle was handled by Oswald. CE 637 establishes Oswald handled CE 139 at least once...else the concerns over that latent being planted, as considered during the Warren Commission investigation, have much greater impact. CE 637 needs to be discussed separately.
The main focus here deals with the issue of possession. It has been officially presented that since delivery, Oswald was the only person to have handled this rifle. The WCR presented exhibits and testimony on two of three main surface areas of CE 139, which deal with latent images. This is fine - if you want to ignore the conflict surrounding the third area - the "under the scopic sight" latent that Lt Day noticed and testified to.
In research for my program "Questions of Integrity" dealing with the major concerns of the fingerprint evidence in the Kennedy assassination, the third area of concern is presented.
From the Warren Commission Hearings, testimony of Lt. Day, Dallas Police Department:
"Mr. BELIN. What other processing did you do with this particular rifle?"
"Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them."
He did however apply lifting tape over the one set of latents and provided photographic evidence for the third area in the form of CE 721. These are the "protected prints" mentioned by SA Latona.
"Mr. Day. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the wood-stock. I started to take the wood-stock off and noted traces of a palm print near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the wood-stock loose."
The primary conflict is established. Lt. Day is talking about two separate areas of CE 139. The under the barrel palm print designated as CE 637, was not the latent that "extended under the woodstock". CE 637 could not be seen prior to taking the rifle apart. No portion of that latent extended under any portion of wooden stock.
The "protected prints" need to be addressed separately; those being the trigger guard latent images. That lift was never introduced into evidence as any exhibit, though CE 637 was. But in this article those prints are not the major issue.
The "no value" issue on each and every developed latent image is a critical concern in this case study. It is an issue of importance to both sides and needs to be addressed in detail in accordance with the latest forensic science available.
New FBI procedures were established in 2001, but they have yet to re-examine the issue of "value" in the Oswald case.
The computer software involved in these latest procedures would in fact, take the issue of establishing value out of the hands of the examiner.
The metal barrel of CE 139 was not as absorbent as it was presented...otherwise CE 637 would not have been recovered. The age of that latent can go as far back as the first time the disassembled rifle was handled by Oswald. CE 637 establishes Oswald handled CE 139 at least once...else the concerns over that latent being planted, as considered during the Warren Commission investigation, have much greater impact. CE 637 needs to be discussed separately.
The main focus here deals with the issue of possession. It has been officially presented that since delivery, Oswald was the only person to have handled this rifle. The WCR presented exhibits and testimony on two of three main surface areas of CE 139, which deal with latent images. This is fine - if you want to ignore the conflict surrounding the third area - the "under the scopic sight" latent that Lt Day noticed and testified to.
In research for my program "Questions of Integrity" dealing with the major concerns of the fingerprint evidence in the Kennedy assassination, the third area of concern is presented.
From the Warren Commission Hearings, testimony of Lt. Day, Dallas Police Department:
"Mr. BELIN. What other processing did you do with this particular rifle?"
"Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them."
He did however apply lifting tape over the one set of latents and provided photographic evidence for the third area in the form of CE 721. These are the "protected prints" mentioned by SA Latona.
"Mr. Day. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the wood-stock. I started to take the wood-stock off and noted traces of a palm print near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the wood-stock loose."
The primary conflict is established. Lt. Day is talking about two separate areas of CE 139. The under the barrel palm print designated as CE 637, was not the latent that "extended under the woodstock". CE 637 could not be seen prior to taking the rifle apart. No portion of that latent extended under any portion of wooden stock.
Trigger guard housing of CE 139
