|
|
 July 20, 2010, 09:09:39 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 679
|
In the O.J trial the police were grilled with tampering with evidence on how they walked thru the blood without proper shoe protection and anything that was NOT covered on human hands - that evidence was considered QUESTIONABLE iwth police cover -up........ Now when they found So- Called Oswald Murder weapon.....this picture shows Evidence tampering...WHERE'S THE GLOVES?????????? Touching the weapon without gloves could show a False Positive Palm print........If this case went to trail.....This could be a good case of evidence tampering 
-------------------------
-------------------------
Why was Kennedy killed, Who Benefited and Who has the Power to cover it up...Who?
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 20, 2010, 10:40:22 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 679
|
Didn't Day only hold the rifle by the strap that he knew he wouldn't be able to recover prints from anyway (as can be seen in the photograph)?
No Gloves = Tampering it don't matter where is he holding it, He is touching the rifle.....
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
July 20, 2010, 11:00:55 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2338
|
This very clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge of evidence standards, and how they change with time. You and so many other CTs keep thinking that what is done today as SOPs by detectives collecting forensic evidence is the same thing they must have done in 1963, but it ain't so Paul. THEY DID NOT WEAR GLOVES in those days, understand? By 1963 standards, HE IS NOT CONTAMINATING ANYTHING, period. The methods/precautions were different back then, something too many of you CTs just don't seem to understand no matter how many times it gets said to you.
It does not invalidate what they did, except of course to those of you who think Oswald was framed, set up, innocent, etc.
-------------------------
-------------------------
"you're the cop, you figure it out"
-Lee H. Oswald to Dallas Police detectives, weekend
of 11-22-63.
"Part of the reason why we avoided talking about this thing, because every time you say something, somebody misinterprets what you say."
-James. J. Humes, excerpt of ARRB statement, 2-13-96
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 20, 2010, 06:47:14 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2660
|
What were the laws in 1963 Paul?
No offense Paul, but i'am going with Ian and Geoff here. In all the footages or photos, showing the MC examined or transported, nobody touches the rifle itself. Just the strap. I doubt it was a common practice in 63 to use gloves. Apart from that, the most prominent fingerprints would be expected on the rifle and this was examined. But thats another story... best to you Martin
-------------------------
-------------------------
Firework As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginGod bless Emmett Till: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginInsipired by the Movie "Invictus" and Nelson Mandela. What a poem! As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
July 20, 2010, 07:08:46 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6699
|
In the O.J trial the police were grilled with tampering with evidence on how they walked thru the blood without proper shoe protection and anything that was NOT covered on human hands - that evidence was considered QUESTIONABLE iwth police cover -up........ Now when they found So- Called Oswald Murder weapon.....this picture shows Evidence tampering...WHERE'S THE GLOVES?????????? Touching the weapon without gloves could show a False Positive Palm print........If this case went to trail.....This could be a good case of evidence tampering You missed a key difference. When Lt. Day removed the rifle, he picked it up by the strap to not leave fingerprints. THEN he carefully examined the rifle to determine if there could be fingerprints on the stock. He determined that the stock was too rough to hold any fingerprints, so he then held it by the stock. He did not hold it by the metal because he realized that there could be fingerprints on the metal. Back at HQs they did find fingerprints on the metal magazine housing and when they took the rifle apart they found a palm print on the barrel underneath where the stock covers up the barrel.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
July 24, 2010, 08:24:58 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 8302
|
This very clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge of evidence standards, and how they change with time. You and so many other CTs keep thinking that what is done today as SOPs by detectives collecting forensic evidence is the same thing they must have done in 1963, but it ain't so Paul. THEY DID NOT WEAR GLOVES in those days, understand? By 1963 standards, HE IS NOT CONTAMINATING ANYTHING, period. The methods/precautions were different back then, something too many of you CTs just don't seem to understand no matter how many times it gets said to you.
It does not invalidate what they did, except of course to those of you who think Oswald was framed, set up, innocent, etc.
Let's flip it then -- why did LHO leave NO prints (the alleged palm-print was obviously NOT on the rifle per Latona when he got it from the DPD) on the rifle when he had NO gloves on?
-------------------------
-------------------------
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
"Benavides- Saw Oswald kill Tippit, picked him out of a lineup." - Brian "Doesn't Know His Rear From His Back" Walker
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
July 24, 2010, 08:57:59 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6699
|
This very clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge of evidence standards, and how they change with time. You and so many other CTs keep thinking that what is done today as SOPs by detectives collecting forensic evidence is the same thing they must have done in 1963, but it ain't so Paul. THEY DID NOT WEAR GLOVES in those days, understand? By 1963 standards, HE IS NOT CONTAMINATING ANYTHING, period. The methods/precautions were different back then, something too many of you CTs just don't seem to understand no matter how many times it gets said to you.
It does not invalidate what they did, except of course to those of you who think Oswald was framed, set up, innocent, etc.
Let's flip it then -- why did LHO leave NO prints (the alleged palm-print was obviously NOT on the rifle per Latona when he got it from the DPD) on the rifle when he had NO gloves on? False premise. Oswald did leave fingerprints on the rifle. It was HIS rifle, so why shouldn't he be allowed to leave fingerprints on his own rifle? No one could leave fingerprints on the wooden stock because the surface was too rough.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2010, 10:08:12 PM
|
Newbie
Posts: 35
|
Didn't Fritz work the bolt while on the sixth floor?.....Robert
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
|
