JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Oswald fingerprints on the live shell?
Matt Grantham:
--- Quote from: Walt Cakebread on May 10, 2018, 02:56:46 PM ---I'm praying that someone will engage me in a intelligent discussion based on the above.......
Here's the problem.... Tom Alyea says that he watched as detective Day lifted prints ( that's PRINTS meaning more than one print)
We do have one print that was lifted from the wooden foregrip of a model 91/38 carcano rifle. LBJ's cover up committee gave us that photo of the lifted print an it is identified as CE 634. The also gave us a BS story about how CE 634 came to be.
Now to the crux of the matter.... Tom Alyea said that he saw AND FILMED detective Day lift PRINTS from the rifle....
Detective Day is on record as stating that he saw PRINTS on the rifle when he dusted the rifle for prints in the TSND at about 1:45 that afternoon. Day said that he placed cellophane tape over the prints on the trigger guard to protect the prints until he could get to the police lab and examine the prints under better conditions. However there are dozens of photos of detective Day carrying the carcano as he departs the TSBD with the carcano....and there is NO cellophane tape on the trigger guard of the rifle.
We do have FBI photos that were taken of the trigger guard (magazine) which show a small bit of someone's finger prints. And those photos appear to show the remnants of prints that were left behind on the magazine after someone lifted the major portion of the finger prints.
SO the question I have is:.....Was Tom Alyea correct when he said that he watched detective Day lift prints ( plural) from the carcano? Did Day find prints that obviously were not Lee Harrrrvey Ossssswald's, who was the patsy and arch villain ??
--- End quote ---
What happened to Alyea's film?
Walt Cakebread:
--- Quote from: Matt Grantham on May 10, 2018, 03:13:20 PM --- What happened to Alyea's film?
--- End quote ---
Alyea, says it was cut back at the studio and thrown away..... And it might have been. ?? But I'd bet Hoover extra special special agents destroyed that film.
Steve M. Galbraith:
--- Quote from: Jack Trojan on May 09, 2018, 12:21:02 AM ---So that explains why Oswald didn't leave a single print on the stock, barrel, trigger, clip, ammo and scope of the MC after he disassembled then reassembled it in the TSBD. Is that what those latent fingerprint examiners are suggesting or are you?
--- End quote ---
Again, what do the forensics experts who study these matters say about finding prints on firearms? I don't know anything about the matter; certainly not about their ability to recover them from firearms in 1963.
Your disagreement is with forensic science and facts and not me. As I said, this is real life and not the movies or television - CSI Dallas doesn't exist. I've said nothing about the issue because I have no knowledge on it. They do. And those experts I've read say it is very difficult to recover prints from firearms. So isn't that the likely explanation?
Can you cite forensic experts who say that there should have been numerous identifiable prints of Oswald on the rifle? It's your claim; you need to support it.
Question: How many prints of Oswald are needed to show he handled the rifle? Ten? Twelve? Isn't one enough?
Why didn't all of these powerful groups that you think pulled off this coup place more of his prints on the rifle? I assume you think they planted them, right? Because he never owned that rifle and the only reason any did appear is because they planted them? Correct?
Bill Chapman:
--- Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on May 08, 2018, 10:32:43 PM ---What do criminologists and forensic scientists say about finding identifiable prints on weapons? Or in general at crime scenes? . Let's limit it to firearms since that's the issue you raised. Not only today but fifty plus years ago? This is not the movies; this is real life.
So, what do the experts say? Have you researched the issue? Yes, this is a challenge because I've read what they say. And you won't like it.
For example, from a 1997 article published in "The Journal of Forensic Identification":
"Latent fingerprint examiners generally know that even when cutting edge technology such as cyanoacrylate fuming and laser/forensic light source examination are utilized, successful development of latent prints on firearms is difficult to achieve. In reality, very few identifiable latent prints are found on firearms, a fact that has been discussed in both the literature and the judicial system."
And that's not an anecdote.
--- End quote ---
Right on.
There's about a 5-10% chance that any usuable fingerprints will be found on the firearms in any given crime, even today, let alone 1963.
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Walt Cakebread on May 08, 2018, 06:55:52 PM --- I filmed him lifting prints from the rifle. He lifted them off with scotch tape and placed them on little white cards.
--- End quote ---
If this is true, then what happened to the other "little white cards"? And how do you know that CE 637 was one of them?
--- Quote ---The only print of a lift is the so called "palm print" ( CE 634) and it was listed on the evidence list of the evidence that was turned over to the FBI at midnight.
--- End quote ---
Except the evidence list in question is undated. And Vince Drain (who received the evidence) knew nothing about the magic palmprint. And again, the magic palmprint is CE 637, not CE 634.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version