Et tu, Bonnie?

[Martin Weidmann]

It doesn't matter how long it took to match the prints.  The fact remains that 24 of the 25 identifiable prints (exclusive of Oswald's prints) found on the boxes were matched to the two investigators.  None of these identifiable prints matched anyone from the TSBD other than Oswald.  That is confirmed in the FBI report (Commission Exhibit 3131).  These are simply facts reported by the FBI.  Because you don't like them doesn't change that.  It is simply a fact that Oswald's prints on the SN boxes are the only ones linked to any TSBD employee.  Thus, dismissing the evidentiary value of his prints being found on these boxes because "he worked there" is entirely baseless.  No one else who worked at the TSBD left prints on these boxes. Only Oswald.  So much bad luck.

The fact remains that 24 of the 25 identifiable prints (exclusive of Oswald's prints) found on the boxes were matched to the two investigators.

Yeah sure... a warehouse full of boxes and people moving them and the only employee they found only two prints for is Oswald, but two investigators left all the others.... Are you for real?

These are simply facts reported by the FBI.

LOL

Thus, dismissing the evidentiary value of his prints being found on these boxes because "he worked there" is entirely baseless. 

Nope, it's actually enforced. A warehouse full of boxes and out of all employees only one touched one. And you actually believe that?

No one else who worked at the TSBD left prints on these boxes. Only Oswald.

How many boxes were needed to build the sniper's nest?

And the guy who is supposed to have build it all by himself only left 2 prints where a crime lab officer managed to leave a multitude of prints..... and you believe that?

[Martin Weidmann]

You tell us:

1) Individuals don't always have a sufficient quantity of perspiration and/or contaminates on their hands to be deposited
2) When someone touches something, they may handle it in a manner which causes the prints to smear
3) The surface may not be suitable for retaining the minute traces of moisture in a form representative of the ridge detail
4) The environment may cause the latent print to deteriorate.

Next time take notes.

In other words; just about everybody else could have touched those boxes but as we found, within a multitude of prints, only two prints belonging to Oswald he must be the one that's guilty. That is what you are saying, isn't it?

Salem would be a nice place for you.

[Bill Chapman]

In other words; just about everybody else could have touched those boxes but as we found, within a multitude of prints, only two prints belonging to Oswald he must be the one that's guilty. That is what you are saying, isn't it?

Salem would be a nice place for you.

Keep your 'other words' to yourself and stop ignoring the fact that the position of the two prints on the top window box clearly indicate that Oswald was pointing the box right down Elm.

[Richard Smith]

The fact remains that 24 of the 25 identifiable prints (exclusive of Oswald's prints) found on the boxes were matched to the two investigators.

Yeah sure... a warehouse full of boxes and people moving them and the only employee they found only two prints for is Oswald, but two investigators left all the others.... Are you for real?

These are simply facts reported by the FBI.

LOL

Thus, dismissing the evidentiary value of his prints being found on these boxes because "he worked there" is entirely baseless. 

Nope, it's actually enforced. A warehouse full of boxes and out of all employees only one touched one. And you actually believe that?

No one else who worked at the TSBD left prints on these boxes. Only Oswald.

How many boxes were needed to build the sniper's nest?

And the guy who is supposed to have build it all by himself only left 2 prints where a crime lab officer managed to leave a multitude of prints..... and you believe that?

What do you believe happened?  That the FBI faked all this print evidence and having total control over it decided to limit the number of Oswald's prints that they found for some inexplicable reason?  And then fail to find any prints on the rifle that they were attempting to use in this frame of Oswald?  Makes no sense.  Your issue is with the evidence.   The evidence confirms that Oswald touched the SN boxes.  No other TSBD employee left any identifiable prints on those boxes.  Only Oswald.  Using 1963 technology that is not surprising.  Oswald, as the assassin, would have handled those boxes just prior to the assassination.  If some other TSBD employee handled them on some prior occasion, then it less likely that they would be found with the passage of time.  So once again the evidence points to Oswald and only Oswald.  It is weak contrarian sauce to dismiss the presence of Oswald's prints on the SN boxes as a produce of his "working there" when no other TSBD employee left any such prints.

[Alan Ford]

You're quite correct, I do have Dougherty in the frame for being Rowland's "man with the rifle", but you don't.

So neither of us believes that Mr Dougherty is telling the truth about what he saw up there. Got it.

So it's you who has to explain this discrepancy, not me.

What discrepancy? Mr Dougherty saw more than he told. Simple self-preservation, just like with Mr Williams.

Rowland's testimony has got nothing to do with it.
The testimonies of the officers who saw the SN before Fritz got there recall that the lunch remains were in/on the SN (something Williams lies about in his WC testimony).

Prove those lunch remains were Mr Williams'. Heck, prove they were even left there that day.

Wiliiams' WC testimony confirms the lunch remains were his

Sure------coached testimony from a man who changed his story as often as his clothes

and that he went down to the 5th about 12:20 PM
The WC testimonies of Jarman and Norman place themselves on the fifth around 12:25 PM

Yes-------an important piece of Mr Oswald's alibi for the shooting

after which time Williams joined them.

Not necessarily

All these testimonies, taken together, place Williams in the SN having his lunch until 12:25 PM at least.
Rowland's observation of an African American male in the SN around 12:15/16 PM can only refer to Williams who is placed there, at that time, by all the above testimonies.

Nonsense. Mr Rowland describes a man who simply does not fit Mr Williams. As in, his description is miles off. You can ignore if you wish, but it doesn't make the discrepancies go away. The man was either Mr Eddie Piper or a non-employee.

That Rowland doesn't really pay any attention to this person explains much about the discrepancies in his identification but the point is that his testimony doesn't place Williams there. It is simply confirmation of all the other testimonies.

Correction: Ms Hall doesn't say she sees a member of the "team" (Lol)

So who, if not a member of the team, do you think this hat-wearing man could be?

Correction: see above

I have seen above and lo, you still can't explain away Officer Baker's first-day affidavit!

"Solution" 

Yep---------you claimed that Mr Williams must have been involved because he was allowed to leave the sixth floor. I showed how silly that assumption is 

[Martin Weidmann]

What do you believe happened?  That the FBI faked all this print evidence and having total control over it decided to limit the number of Oswald's prints that they found for some inexplicable reason?  And then fail to find any prints on the rifle that they were attempting to use in this frame of Oswald?  Makes no sense.  Your issue is with the evidence.   The evidence confirms that Oswald touched the SN boxes.  No other TSBD employee left any identifiable prints on those boxes.  Only Oswald.  Using 1963 technology that is not surprising.  Oswald, as the assassin, would have handled those boxes just prior to the assassination.  If some other TSBD employee handled them on some prior occasion, then it less likely that they would be found with the passage of time.  So once again the evidence points to Oswald and only Oswald.  It is weak contrarian sauce to dismiss the presence of Oswald's prints on the SN boxes as a produce of his "working there" when no other TSBD employee left any such prints.

What do you believe happened?

I don't know what happened. You are the one making a big deal out of 2 prints, so perhaps you tell me.

The evidence confirms that Oswald touched the SN boxes.

So what? He worked there....

No other TSBD employee left any identifiable prints on those boxes.  Only Oswald.

Yeah right, with a new floor being laid on the 6th floor and boxes being moved around all the time by all the TSBD employees who were there only Oswald somehow managed to leave two prints behind. And you believe this is even remotely plausible?

Oswald, as the assassin, would have handled those boxes just prior to the assassination.

There is the circular "logic" again

If some other TSBD employee handled them on some prior occasion, then it less likely that they would be found with the passage of time.

The passage of time? Just how many days in advance do you believe the snipers nest was build?

So once again the evidence points to Oswald and only Oswald.

Said the prosecutor, desperately looking for something to get a conviction.

It is weak contrarian sauce to dismiss the presence of Oswald's prints on the SN boxes as a produce of his "working there" when no other TSBD employee left any such prints.

And it's utterly pathetic LN crap to assume that out of all the people working at the TSBD, moving boxes around, only two prints would be identified as belonging to one man..... All the other boxes moved magically by themselves, right?

[Dan O'meara]

So neither of us believes that Mr Dougherty is telling the truth about what he saw up there. Got it.

Got it?  Is that you trying to be masterful?

Prove those lunch remains were Mr Williams'. Heck, prove they were even left there that day.

The officers who saw the SN before Fritz arrived (five or six of them) reported seeing the lunch remains in/on the SN.
The officers who saw the SN after Fritz had been there saw the lunch remains by the two-wheeler truck.
Got it.

Sure------coached testimony from a man who changed his story as often as his clothes

Williams was saying it was his lunch months before his WC testimony.
Got it.

Not necessarily

??
Williams is photographed on the 5th floor with Norman and Jarman.
Got it

Nonsense. Mr Rowland describes a man who simply does not fit Mr Williams. As in, his description is miles off. You can ignore if you wish, but it doesn't make the discrepancies go away. The man was either Mr Eddie Piper or a non-employee.

All the testimony I mentioned in my post put Williams in the SN eating his lunch at the time Rowland sees the man in the SN window.
Got it.
(I like the way your "team" moves everyone away apart from Eddie Piper. Brilliant.)

So who, if not a member of the team, do you think this hat-wearing man could be?

I have seen above and lo, you still can't explain away Officer Baker's first-day affidavit!

Neither of them mentions anyone from your "team".
You stand corrected.

Yep---------you claimed that Mr Williams must have been involved because he was allowed to leave the sixth floor. I showed how silly that assumption is 

Where did I claim that?