Three Problems with the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Michael T. Griffith]

I did a little checking about paraffin tests and, not surprisingly, discovered that WC apologists have misrepresented the facts about the test and its reliability.

* Here is an article written in 1961 and published in the Marquette Law Review that presents evidence that the paraffin test had a high degree of accuracy when it was done properly:

“Evidential Implications of the Dermal Nitrate Test for Gunpowder Residues”
https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2849&context=mulr

The article notes that the Turkel and Lipman study, which paraffin-test critics widely cited, and which the Colorado supreme court cited in its ruling against paraffin tests, was badly flawed and failed to conform to the “minimum requirements for scientific methodology.” The article further notes that the Harrison and Gilroy studies were much more precise and scientific than the Turkel and Lipman study.

* A key reason that paraffin tests were eventually discontinued is that most paraffin tests were done on hands, since most criminal shootings, like today, were done with handguns, not rifles. It was realized that false positives on hands were possible if the person had handled a number of common substances on the day of the shooting. If defense attorneys could show, or seem to show, that the accused had handled substances that could have left nitrates on his hands, the paraffin test’s evidentiary value was minimized or eliminated.

* Another reason that paraffin tests were eventually discontinued by police departments partly is that some courts ruled they were too unreliable, even though other courts, such as the Pennsylvania supreme court, ruled they were reliable enough as long as they were done properly.

* Paraffin tests done on cheeks were much more reliable because false positives were very unlikely. When a gunshot crime was committed with a rifle, the police would do a paraffin cast of the suspect’s right cheek (left cheek if he were left handed). The mold would then be tested spectrographically, usually by the police crime lab or by a locally contracted lab. If the paraffin cast tested positive for nitrates, mainly barium and antimony, this was viewed as strong evidence that the person had fired a rifle, and defense attorneys had a very hard time coming up innocent explanations for the presence of nitrates on the cheek. 

* A 1991 article titled “Forensic Science: Gunshot Residue Tests” in the Criminal Law Bulletin noted that gunshot residue tests done with neutron activation analysis (NAA) are extremely accurate: “Neutron activation analysis (NAA), a method for determining the elemental composition of substances, is extremely sensitive and accurate.”

However, the article also notes that NAA testing requires access to a nuclear reactor: “However, a principal disadvantage of NAA is the required access to a research nuclear reactor.”

“Forensic Science: Gunshot Residue Tests”
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=133932

* It is very significant that the paraffin cast of Oswald’s right cheek was tested with NAA at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and that the NAA test found no traces of nitrates in the cast. This is powerful evidence that Oswald did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination.

* There is a revealing and fascinating behind-the-scenes story about the NAA testing of Oswald’s paraffin cheek cast. Dr. Gerald McKnight discusses this in his book Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why (University Press of Kansas, 2005).

In February 1964, Dr. Vincent Guinn contacted the FBI’s spectrographer, John Gallagher, to tell him the good news that reenactments done at the Oak Ridge facility proved that if Oswald fired a rifle three times in rapid succession, NAA testing of his paraffin cheek cast would positively detect nitrates in the cast:

The triple firing of the rifle, Guinn advised, “leaves unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts.” Because of the inferior construction of the Mannlicher-Carcano, the Italian army’s World War II assault rifle, Guinn noted that the blowback from one or three shots deposited powder residue “on both cheeks” of the shooter. . . .

The test results . . . disclosed that every time the Mannlicher-Carcano was fired, the paraffin tests showed positive for barium and antimony. . . . (Breach of Trust, p. 259)

Guinn did not know that the FBI had already had Oswald’s paraffin cheek cast tested at Oak Ridge. When asked Guinn asked Gallagher for information about the Oswald paraffin casts, Gallagher stonewalled him and told him the information was unavailable at that time!

[Joe Elliott]

I did a little checking about paraffin tests and, not surprisingly, discovered that WC apologists have misrepresented the facts about the test and its reliability.

* Here is an article written in 1961 and published in the Marquette Law Review that presents evidence that the paraffin test had a high degree of accuracy when it was done properly:

Well, I guess you can’t say that nothing but bad comes out of Marquette University.


I’m not talking about paraffin tests unless questions are answered.

Question 1:

The FBI had someone fired Oswald’s rifle three times, and the paraffin test on him came up negative.

So, doesn’t this indicate that paraffin tests are unreliable?

Question 2:

If paraffin tests are reliable, why aren’t they used today?

Question 3:

If you answer Question 2 with “Because Nuclear Reactors are not available”, why is it that Nuclear Reactors used to be available for these tests, but no longer are?

Question 4:
And what do you mean by a “Nuclear Reactor”?

Like a full-size nuclear power plant? A small-scale research reactor? And why couldn’t such reactors be used today for critically important criminal cases? If paraffin tests are so reliable.

Surely, they would be used from time to time, in life or death (or life imprisonment cases), if the paraffin test was reliable.

[Jerry Freeman]

The FBI had someone fired Oswald’s rifle three times, and the paraffin test on him came up negative.

Is there a link or something that you might provide to support your claims? Oswald was supposed to have fired a pistol also...no positives there either.

So, doesn’t this indicate that paraffin tests are unreliable?
 If paraffin tests are reliable, why aren’t they used today?

I believe they are.
 https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-paraffin-test

[Jerry Freeman]

I believe this is perhaps the image that Jerry Freeman struggled to find:



If that deformation to the base of the bullet occurred upon firing the projectile, and not from striking Connally’s rib, the bullet would never had been able to pass through the barrel of the rifle.

Deformation upon firing, HA.

What happened to bullets merely fired into water------------------------

[Joe Elliott]

Is there a link or something that you might provide to support your claims?

I have provided that link a couple of times already. But here it is again:

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

This specifically talks about, among other things, a man firing Oswald’s rifle three times, and a paraffin test coming up negative on him.

Oswald was supposed to have fired a pistol also...no positives there either.

Actually, this is wrong. The paraffin test on Oswald’s hands? Positive. On the cheek? Negative. But gunpowder cannot escape the rifle near the hands or face as easily as it can Oswald’s handgun.

I believe they are.

 https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-paraffin-test

You believe that paraffin tests are reliable. Then tell me, why the paraffin test has gone the way of Phrenology tests, as far as courts of law are concerned.

Phrenology is the “study” the heads of people, living or dead, to determine an individual’s natural tendency to commit crimes. Or to “prove” the inferiority of certain races.

[Jerry Freeman]

  The paraffin test on Oswald’s hands? Positive. On the cheek? Negative.

Nitrates are found on cardboard boxes which Oswald handled filling orders all morning.

[Jerry Freeman]

You believe that paraffin tests are reliable.  Then tell me, why the paraffin test has gone the way of Phrenology tests, as far as courts of law are concerned.

Let's stick to the topic.