” A latent palm print which was located on a cardboard carton found by police in the room from which the shots were fired was identified as the right palm print of Oswald. One latent fingerprint and a latent left palm print developed on another box in this same room were also idenitified as Oswald’s imporessions.” ( CD 1, pg. 19 )
A fingerprint is an impression left by the friction ridges of a human finger. The recovery of partial fingerprints from a crime scene is an important method of forensic science. Moisture and grease on a finger result in fingerprints on surfaces such as glass or metal.
The composition of fingerprints consists of water (95%-99%), as well as organic and inorganic constituents. The organic component is made up of amino acids, proteins, glucose, lactase, urea, pyruvate, fatty acids and sterols. Inorganic ions such as chloride, sodium, potassium and iron are also present. Other contaminants such as oils found in cosmetics, drugs and their metabolites and food residues may be found in fingerprint residues.
When friction ridges come into contact with a surface that will take a print, material that is on the friction ridges such as perspiration, oil, grease, ink, or blood, will be transferred to the surface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint
We always leave fingerprints marks even if we cannot see them! That’s because our skin produces sweat and oil. As a matter of fact, when we pick or touch an object, we leave behind our fingerprints.
Oswald’s prints on two of four cartons
Five days after the assassination, the FBI received from the Dallas Police four empty cartons police said were retrieved from the “sniper’s nest” in the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
These four cartons were given Commission Exhibit numbers 641, 648, 653 and 654. A piece of cardboard was cut off of Exhibit 648 and was designated Commission Exhibit 649.
According to the FBI’s expert who supervised the retrieval of the prints, Sebastian Latona, the four cartons had 28 identifiable prints on them, 20 fingerprints and 8 palmprints. ( Report, pg. 140 )
Of the 28 identifiable prints on the four cartons, one fingerprint and two palmprints were identified as those of Lee Harvey Oswald.
His left palmprint and right index finger was found on the carton the FBI designated as carton A, which became Commission Exhibit 641 and his right palmprint was found on FBI Box D, which became Commission Exhibit 648.
Evidence that Oswald’s fingerprints or palmprints were on cartons in the “sniper’s nest” is only significant if he DIDN’T work in the building. But because he DID work in the building, their presence is NOT proof that they were connected to the shooting.
Unless, of course, the prosecution can prove that the fingerprints were put on those two cartons at 12:30 pm on November 22nd, 1963.
CE 641 / FBI Box A
Latona testified that when the FBI received this carton it had NOT been previously dusted for fingerprints. ( 4 H 31 )
So the question is, why not ? As we shall see, the police dusted the carton on the floor known as CE 648, why didn’t they dust this carton, one that made up the “gun rest” ?
It seems to me that the cartons stacked to make a “gun rest” would have been dusted for fingerprints before any cartons lying on the floor.
During his sworn testimony, Latona seemed confused as to how many prints were actually found on this carton, at first saying that a single fingerprint had been found. It wasn’t until Commission counsel advised him to look at his notes that his memory was improved, testifying that a fingerprint AND a palmprint was found along with 11 other prints. ( ibid. )
What started out as Latona’s single fingerprint was, in fact, 13 prints ( ibid. ), 11 of which he testified were not Oswald’s. ( 4 H 35 )
CE 648 / FBI Box D
This carton was the only carton dusted by police. It was located on the floor upside down, with the bottom facing upward. On this carton, there were two identifiable fingerprints that Latona could not connect to any person. ( 4 H 38 ) And a palmprint he identified as Lee Harvey Oswald’s.
The portion of the the box that contained Oswald’s palmprint was cut from the box and became Commission Exhibit 649. ( ibid. )
CE 653 / FBI Box B
This carton had seven identifiable fingerprints and two identifiable palmprints that Latona was never able to connect with a particular person. ( 4 H 42 )
CE 654 / FBI Box C
This carton had two fingerprints and one palmprint that Latona was unable to connect with a particular person. ( ibid. )
Neither CE 653 nor CE 654 had Oswald’s prints on them. ( ibid. )
The location of Oswald’s fingerprint and palmprint on only the top of the CE 641 carton in the “gun rest” made it a physical impossibility that he was the one who stacked the boxes in front of the window.
Proof Oswald did not stack the cartons
Commission Exhibit 1301 shows that on all of the cartons containing Oswald’s prints, the prints were located on the top-facing surfaces.
Oswald’s prints were not found on the bottom or the sides of the cartons, where one would expect to find the prints of someone who was lifting the carton to stack it.
All of the prints on the top-facing surfaces of the cartons was proof that Oswald had not stacked them, but had touched them at some point.
Following the science, gravity would not allow the lifting of any object from the top without a handle or grab slot, which these cartons did not have.
Not only was it physically impossible for Oswald to have stacked the cartons based on the number and locations of his prints, the crime scene photographs show the “gun rest” in different configurations and raise the question of why that is so.
Problems with the crime scene photographs
In its Report, the Commission stated:
“Below the southeast corner window on the sixth floor was a large carton of books measuring approximately 18 by 12 by 14 inches which had been moved from a stack along the south wall. Atop this carton was a small carton marked “Rolling Readers,” measuring approximately 13 by 9 by 8 inches.
In front of this small carton and resting partially on the windowsill was another small “Rolling Readers” carton. These two small cartons had been moved from a stack about three aisles away. The boxes in the window appeared to have been arranged as a convenient gun rest. (See Commission Exhibit No. 1301, p. 138.)
Behind these boxes was another carton placed on the floor on which a man sitting could look southwesterly down Elm Street over the top of the “Rolling Readers” cartons.” ( Report, pg. 140 )
The Commission described the configuration of its “gun rest” as it was in exhibit 1301.
But crime scene photographs taken by The Dallas Police and others show that there were different configurations of these cartons.
For example, a second configuration shows three cartons stacked on top of each other, with the short end of the top carton facing Elm St.
A third configuration also shows three cartons stacked on top of each other, but with the short end of the top carton facing the triple underpass.
This configuration seems to be supported by a photo taken by newsman Tom Dillard seconds after the shooting.
In contrast to Commission’s Exhibit 1301, which showed a carton on the window sill leaning back against the carton behind it, a fourth configuration ( Commission Exhibit 734 ) shows the carton on the sill not leaning back at all and there was a space between it and the carton behind it.
With all of these different configurations, these photographs cannot be a true representation of the crime scene. Had they all been taken at the time of the assassination, then there shouldn’t be more than one configuration of the “gun rest”.
The fact that there is more than one configuration is evidence that the crine scene was either a.) contaminated by manipulation of the cartons, or b.) at least some of the photographs were not taken at the time of the assassination.
But the conflict in the position of the cartons making up the “gun rest” wasn’t the only problem with Oswald’s prints in the “sniper’s nest”.
The Commission LIES about the “freshness” of the prints
One of the things the Commission tried to do was to place the fingerprint and palmprints on the boxes at the time of the assassination. This required it to obtain testimony from “experts” on the fingerprint’s “freshness”.
Its FBI expert, Sebastian Latona testified that, ” I don’t think that the print on here that is touched on a piece of cardboard will stay on a piece of cardboard for 3 days.” ( 4 H 39 )
He went on to estimate that the palmprint was left on the box within 24 hours prior to the box being dusted with fingerprint powder. ( ibid. )
The problem with this OPINION was that the FBI didn’t receive the boxes ( including CE 641 with Oswald’s fingerprint and palmprints ) until November 27, some FIVE DAYS after the assassination and two days after Latona testified the palmprint and fingerprint on CE 641 should have been unretrievable.
Not only had the prints not been absorbed by the cardboard, as Latona had testified would happen after 24 hours ( 4 H 38-39 ), the FBI was able to extract 11 additional identifiable prints besides Oswald’s from CE 641 for a total of 13 identifiable prints. ( 4 H 31 )
It is obvious that either Latona lied about how long the prints would remain on the cardboard, or he wasn’t the expert the Commission thought he was.
But that didn’t stop the Commission.
Confident that they had narrowed the “freshness” of Oswald’s prints on the carton to the 24 hours prior to November 22nd, the Commission sought a second opinion for corroboration, then lied in their report about what that second opinion was.
That opinion came from Arthur Mandella, a New York City detective and fingerprint expert.
In its report, the Commission stated that, “Mandella was of the opinion that the print that was taken from the carton on the floor was probably made within a day or a day and a half of the examination of November 22.” ( Report, pg. 141 )
The footnote ( 230 ) for that statement cites Mandella’s testimony at 4 H 51, 52 and 54, his affidavit on IDing the prints at 15 H 745-746 and his notes on IDing the prints in CE 662. ( Report, pg. 825 )
In none of these citations does Mandella state that the palm print ( CE 649 ) was made 1- 1 1/2 days before November 22nd.
In fact, this was NOT a determination he could have made because he examined PHOTOGRAPHS of the prints and not the prints themselves. ( 4 H 49 )
The truth is, he testified to just the opposite of Latona.
In determining the “freshness” of a print, Mandella testified that, “It is very difficult because at certain times it could be a little more oil on someone’s fingers and this could last longer and appear to be fresher. So it is very difficult to tell positively.” ( 4 H 54 )
In fact, Mandella could only commit on the freshness of a fingerprint when compared to other fingerprints nearby. He testified that whichever fingerprint appeared first was usually the fresher print. ( ibid. )
But when it came to pinpointing the exact time of its placement, he testified that, “You can’t say it was there so many hours or so many days.” ( ibid. )
His final word on the freshness of a print came when asked whether or not he could tell the freshness of a print on the steel part of the CE 139 rifle.
Once again, he referred to determining freshness between prints. He testified that, “by itself …..with nothing around it, you couldn’t tell. It is impossible, as a matter of fact.” ( ibid. )
There was nothing else around the palmprint that had been dusted.
So not only did Sebastian Latona lie about the print being placed no more than 24 hours before it was dusted, the Commission LIED in its report that Det. Mandella corroborated that opinion.
More problems with the “freshness”
Estimates about the age of latent prints are unreliable when the experts guessing have no idea what was on the fingers that touched a surface.
Different material have a different “shelf life” and in any accurate estimation of the age of a fingerprint the “expert” must know what material was on the surface of the finger and deposited.
This fact was expressed by the Commission’s own expert Latona, who testified that, “it is simply a matter of what material you have in your hands that made that print, as to how long it will last…” ( 4 H 22 )
He went on to testify that oily material on the hands or fingers, “will last literally for years on certain objects.” ( ibid. )
Unless scientific analysis of latent print residue on evidence was completed BEFORE processing with powder or chemicals…….the nature of the residue deposited by the fingers or palms cannot be known ( whether it was fried chicken oil, grease, natural secretions from the fingers, etc. ).
And since the fingerprint residue was not examined BEFORE police dusted it, the exact age of the print cannot be determined.
What they didn’t know in 1964, but what we now know today, is that fingerprints left on paper, cardboard and unfinished wood can last for up to forty years ( per actual casework histories ) unless exposed to water ( and even then sometimes persist ). ( ibid. )
Under those conditions, Oswald could have touched those two boxes anytime between his first day of work, October 16th, and the day of the assassination.
Having failed to establish that Oswald’s prints were placed on the boxes between Noon and 12:30 pm on November 22, 1963, the Commission was forced to admit in its report that, “the prints do not establish the exact time he ( Oswald ) was there”. ( Report, pg. 141 )
But a witness who saw Oswald did.
Oswald seen leaving the SE corner at 11:55 am
Charles Givens rode down to the first floor on the elevator when his crew broke for lunch at 11:45 am. When he got down there, he realized that he had left his cigarettes in his jacket pocket and left his jacket on the sixth floor where they had been working replacing the flooring. ( 6 H 349 )
Givens rode the elevator back up to the sixth floor where he saw Oswald coming from, “the window up front where the shots were fired from” ( ibid. )
Givens went on to testify that Oswald, “had his clipboard in his hand” and that Givens had filled orders from the sixth floor in November and “it was possible” that there were cartons in that corner that Oswald may have been looking to fill orders from. ( 6 H 350 )
After all, Oswald was filling orders that morning and was seen doing so by James Jarman ( CD 87, pg. 274 ) who said that the last time he saw Oswald before the shooting was, “between 11:30 and 12:00 noon when he was taking the elevator upstairs to get some boxes.”
According to Oswald’s supervisor, William Shelley, that morning Oswald had been filling orders for Scott-Foresman Publishing, one of the tenants of the Texas School Book Depository building. In fact, Shelley testified that Oswald filled mostly Scott-Foresman orders. ( 6 H 332 )
Superintendent Roy Truly testified that overflow stock of Scott-Foresman books were kept on the sixth floor and that Oswald, “had occasion to go to the sixth floor quite a number of times every day, each day after books.” ( 3 H 215 )
Studebaker Exhibit A shows evidence that cartons of Scott-Foresman books were in the southeast corner of the sixth floor and made up part of the “wall” that was the “sniper’s nest”.
The significance of this that Oswald’s job that morning was to fill orders for Scott-Foresman, some of whose cartons were located in the southeast corner of the sixth floor, where he was seen emerging from with a clipboard at 11:55 by Charles Givens.
A clipboard, not a rifle.
24 of 25
The FBI was able to identify 24 of the 25 remaining prints on the four cartons in the sniper’s nest.
According to the FBI, 18 of those prints belonged to Dallas Detective Robert Lee Studebaker and 6 belonged to FBI clerk Forest L. Lucy. ( CE 3131/26 H 809 )
There was a lone palmprint that the FBI was never able to identify.
When we compare the testimony of Sebastian Latona with the tally in Commission Exhibit 3131, we find that the palmprint that was never identified was on the carton designated as CE 653.
The Commission destroys its own case
“Although a person could handle the cartons and not leave identifiable prints…” ( Report, pg. 141 )
Here the Commission destroys its own argument that Oswald’s prints were significant by admitting the cartons could have been handled by someone else who didn’t leave identifiable prints.
In fact, the FBI found, “many extremely fragmentary latent impressions of no value for identification purposes” on the cartons. ( CE 3135 / 26 H 818 )
Its Report never mentions that were other people who were able to handle the four cartons without leaving identifiable prints.
For example, Dallas Lt. J.C.Day and Detective Richard Livingston handled the cartons. ( 26 H 806 )
Detective Bobby Gene Brown handled the four cartons as well. ( 26 H 808 )
All of these people handled the cartons without leaving a single identifiable fingerprint on a single carton.
And yet Dallas detective R.L. Studebaker left 14 fingerprints and 4 palmprints on three cartons. ( 26 H 809 )
Although proper police procedure would have required the police searching the crime scene to leave NO FINGERPRINTS, Detective Studebaker left SIX TIMES the number of fingerprints ( 18 ) that Oswald did ( 3 ) in the so-called, Sniper’s Nest.”
In other words, the crime scene was contaminated by police.
The point is that if multiple persons were able to handle the cartons without leaving identifiable prints on them, then the significance of Oswald’s 3 identifiable prints being on the 2 cartons as evidence is considerably lessened.
How could any prosecutor bring charges against a defendant whose fingerprints were on a carton at a crime scene, knowing that anybody could have touched that carton without leaving an identifiable print on it ?
Henry Wade could.
Was Oswald able to stack the cartons as a “gun rest” using only his left index finger and the heel of his right palm ?
Just like he was able to construct a paper gunsack using only right index finger and the heel of his left palm ?
While I’m on the subject of the paper gunsack, it should be noted that these are the same two Lt. Day and Det. Studebaker who claimed to have “found” the paper “gunsack” near the “sniper’s nest” that the crime scene photographs failed to show.
In search of the unidentified palmprint
Reminiscent of a Mack Sennett comedy, the FBI notified the Commission in March of 1964 that neither the Bureau, the Secret Service nor the Dallas Police had fingerprinted the employees of the Texas School Book Depository.
This is amazing.
FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE ASSASSINATION, not one single person who had access to the building where witnesses claimed to have seen a man with a rifle shooting at the Presdential limousine had been fingerprinted.
The FBI responded to this oversight by turning to their files and finding fingerprint records of 16 TSBD employees and comparing those fingerprints on record to the fingerprints on the cartons.
The FBI never explained why they had the fingerprints of those employees in their files but none of those fingerprints matched the fingerprints on the cartons. Since the Bureau never had their palmprints, the comparison was never made.
Not satisified with this attempt, the Commission forced the FBI to get off its ass and actually fingerprint employees of the Book Depository.
This was done on June 15, 1964, when the FBI obtained fingerprints and palmprints from 12 employees chosen three days earlier by Superintendent Roy Truly as, “the only persons in this building who would ordinarily handle the cartons located near the sixth floor window.”
Note that Truly made a strange request that, “other employees not be fingerprinted”.
The TSBD refuses to cooperate
The evidence indicates that the FBI wanted to fingerprint ALL of the employees of the TSBD but that endeavor was met by hard resistance from those in charge of the warehouse.
The leaders of this resistance were Roy Truly and his supervisor Ochus Campbell.
The FBI report on their refusal notes that they were opposed to having females in the building fingerprinted for several reasons:
They didn’t have access to the sixth floor.
The TSBD had cooperated with the FBI by allowing its warehouse employees to be fingerprinted and palmprinted.
September was the busiest time of the year and printing their female employees may cause them to be insulted and quit their jobs.
Taking prints of females employees of other companies in the building may result in those companies relocating.
Campbell told the FBI that the TSBD would not comply with the bureau’s wishes unless ordered to do so by subpoena.
Of course, all of these reasons for not fingerprinting the employees are ridiculous.
Everybody had access to the sixth floor. It was wide open.
If secretaries quit their jobs, they could still be subpoenaed to give their prints.
As would any company that left the building.
Because pursuing the matter would not have added anything to Oswald’s guilt, the FBI backed off, leaving it up to the Commission, which decided to drop the whole thing.
Hence the unidentified palmprint remains to this day, unidentified.
Finally, I believe that Roy Truly didn’t want all the employees fingerprinted because it would have proven that the unidentified palmprint had come from someone who was not an employee. So he used the fingerprinting of the women as an excuse to limit the extent of the search for who made the unidentified palmprint.
Roy Truly is on my radar.