JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Oswald fingerprints on the live shell?
John Iacoletti:
--- 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 ---
Good thing they were able to beat the odds and "find" Oswald's partials on the long bag and supposedly on the rifle just when they needed to, huh?
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Walt Cakebread on May 10, 2018, 02:07:43 PM ---Yes I have.....But if you are implying that Tom Alyea was a nefarious part of the conspiracy or the cover up, I certainly would disagree. Alyea seems to be a bit confused about the case....He definitely has exhibited his lack of solid reasoning and commonsense.
--- End quote ---
Except for that bit about lifting prints and putting them on cards. That you can take to the bank because Walt says so.
Walt Cakebread:
--- Quote from: John Iacoletti on May 11, 2018, 12:41:29 AM ---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?
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.
--- End quote ---
Vince Drain???..... Are you kidding.... Or are you actually this naive?
And again, the magic palmprint is CE 637, not CE 634.
Have you not noticed that nearly all of the evidence is identified by two different CE numbers.... All the better to confuse you my dear...
Walt Cakebread:
--- Quote from: John Iacoletti on May 11, 2018, 12:41:29 AM ---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?
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.
--- 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?
If you don't believe Tom Alyea, then you must believe he invented the account. So you believe Alyea fabricated the tale out of thin air? Do you think that's reasonable? ....and for what reason would Alyea create such a lie?
We know for a fact that there is at least one little white card that fits the description presented by Mr Alyea.
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Walt Cakebread on May 11, 2018, 01:19:29 AM ---Vince Drain???..... Are you kidding.... Or are you actually this naive?
--- End quote ---
Well, let's see. Does Vince Drain have 84 fabrications?
--- Quote ---And again, the magic palmprint is CE 637, not CE 634.
Have you not noticed that nearly all of the evidence is identified by two different CE numbers.... All the better to confuse you my dear...
--- End quote ---
Have you actually looked at CE 634? It has ZERO to do with the magic palmprint.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version