Oswald's lies proves his guilt.

[Matt Grantham]

Please explain the process used to extract prints from a dead body at the morgue.

  Take fingertips press onto rifle

[Matt Grantham]

The evidence that he did is that Marina said she saw it, George De Mohrenschildt said he saw it, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt said she saw it, the backyard photos, the Waldman exhibits, the Klein's money order, the WC testimony of Klein's Vice President William Waldman, and Oswald's palm print being on the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

 Is the following incorrect

On November 22nd Lt. Day of the Dallas Police examined the rifle and discovered little evidence of prints except on the metal housing near the trigger, where there were traces of two prints. Then, according to Day, the FBI ordered him not to make a comparison between these prints and Oswald's prints, so he discontinued his work, with no print evidence established.

On November 23rd the rifle was brought to an FBI Laboratory in Washington for inspection. Sebastian Latona examined the rifle that morning and concluded that the print marks on the rifle were insufficient for identification purposes. In fact he stated that it looked like the rifle hadn't even been processed for prints, suggesting that Lt. Day did not carry out any investigations for prints. This prompted FBI Director Hoover to sign a statement confirming that no latent prints of value were lifted from the rifle.

On November 24th Dallas Police Officers were reporting in public interviews that Oswald's prints were not found on the rifle.

Also on Nov 24th, just hours after Oswald was killed the rifle was brought back to Dallas by the FBI, and brought to the funeral home where Oswald's body lay. And according to the funeral home director and the statements from the FBI agents involved, they, the FBI, proceeded to place Oswald's palm print on the rifle (for comparison purposes according to the FBI).

On Nov 26th Lt. Day now claims he found Oswald's palm prints on the rifle on Nov 22nd. This part is the evidence that the WC used ignoring the other confusing and contradictory evidence.

[Tim Nickerson]

Is the following incorrect

On November 22nd Lt. Day of the Dallas Police examined the rifle and discovered little evidence of prints except on the metal housing near the trigger, where there were traces of two prints. Then, according to Day, the FBI ordered him not to make a comparison between these prints and Oswald's prints, so he discontinued his work, with no print evidence established.

On November 23rd the rifle was brought to an FBI Laboratory in Washington for inspection. Sebastian Latona examined the rifle that morning and concluded that the print marks on the rifle were insufficient for identification purposes. In fact he stated that it looked like the rifle hadn't even been processed for prints, suggesting that Lt. Day did not carry out any investigations for prints. This prompted FBI Director Hoover to sign a statement confirming that no latent prints of value were lifted from the rifle.

On November 24th Dallas Police Officers were reporting in public interviews that Oswald's prints were not found on the rifle.

Also on Nov 24th, just hours after Oswald was killed the rifle was brought back to Dallas by the FBI, and brought to the funeral home where Oswald's body lay. And according to the funeral home director and the statements from the FBI agents involved, they, the FBI, proceeded to place Oswald's palm print on the rifle (for comparison purposes according to the FBI).

On Nov 26th Lt. Day now claims he found Oswald's palm prints on the rifle on Nov 22nd. This part is the evidence that the WC used ignoring the other confusing and contradictory evidence.

Matt, since you lumped all of those together then the answer to your question is Yes. It is incorrect. I'll expand on it later.

[Martin Weidmann]

What is your standard for what constitutes as proof? James Bookhout, Will Fritz, James Hosty, Thomas Kelley, and Harry Holmes all said that Oswald denied owning a rifle.

He probably did deny owning a rifle, but that can't be qualified as a lie if you can't prove conclusively he did own a rifle.

And so we are back to the problematic physical evidence that is so common in this case. You know, the physical evidence I asked about in another thread....

[John Iacoletti]

This is how the LN "logic" process goes:

"Oswald must have been the one who killed JFK because he lied"

"What was the lie?"

"He said he didn't kill JFK"

[Denis Pointing]

  Take fingertips press onto rifle

Mat, to put it crudely fingerprints are basically perspiration marks...dead people don't tend to perspire too much. Unlike in the movies, you can't just cover a dead person's fingers with some kind of artificial sweat such as oil or grease, all you end up with is a smudgy mess. Nor can you coat a dead person's fingers with fingerprint ink and then press them on an object, all that gives you is an inkprint, not a fingerprint.

[John Iacoletti]