JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jack Trojan on November 24, 2018, 09:34:06 PM

Title: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 24, 2018, 09:34:06 PM
The fingerprint evidence against Oswald is a joke. But it is more than that, it is evidence of conspiracy. In all 3 cases where Oswald's prints showed up, they were sorely lacking in frequency considering how much he had supposedly handled those items. The FBI, SS and Dallas Police really dropped the ball on their sheep-dipping of Oswald. They got him to pose for pics in his backyard with the murder weapons but they didn't sight in his scope or get more of his prints on the rifle, the bag and the boxes.

Tell me how it is possible to leave so few prints on the following items (without wearing gloves)?

Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence

The Bag

Quote
Latona developed a latent palmprint on the bottom of the bag, the part that was closed. The palmprint was of LHO's heel of his right palm near the wrist on the little finger side. And he developed a fingerprint that matched the left index finger of LHO. There was no other identifiable prints found on the bag per the report.

Summary: LHO allegedly handled the bag and put the disassembled rifle into it, wonky scope included, carried it into the TSBD, then handled the bag while removing the rifle parts from it, and the only prints he got on the bag were a right palm print and his left pinky fingerprint. How was that possible?

The Boxes

Quote
Box A, CE641, is the top smaller box of the stack of two. It had the left Palm Print of LHO.
Box B, CE653, is the box that is leaning on the windowsill. It had 7 fingerprints and 2 palmprints. None of the identifiable prints on Box B were Oswald's. All but one of the prints belonged to either Studebaker or Lucy. The WC noted there was one palmprint on Box B that was not matched.
Box C, CE654, is the bottom larger box of the stack of two. It had 2 fingerprints that were identifiable and 1 palmprint. All of these prints were either Studebaker's or Lucy's.
Box D, CE648, is the large box away from the window. It had the right Palm Print of LHO. Box D had 2 fingerprints, both of which belong to Lucy and the right palmprint of LHO.

Summary: LHO left 1 left palm print on Box A, 1 right palm print on Box D, far fewer prints than Studebaker or Lucy.


The Rifle

Quote
Latona found no prints on the MC during his examination. However, Lt. Day testified that before he had turned the rifle over on Nov. 22, 1963 he "had lifted" a palmprint from the underside of the gun barrel "near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the woodstock when I took the woodstock loose" However, Day did not send this to the FBI until November 26, when he received instructions to send "everything that we had" to the FBI. The print arrived in the FBI Laboratory in Washington on November 29, mounted on a card on which Lieutenant Day had written the words "off underside gun barrel near end of grip C2766." C2766 was the identification number given to the MC rifle found on the sixth floor of the depository.

Summary: LHO had no prints on the MC's barrel, bolt, trigger, stock, clip, ammo, scope and strap even though he supposedly disassembled/reassembled and fired the rifle. The only print of LHO on the rifle was put there post-mortem by the FBI. Just ask Paul Groody.


Conclusion: Oswald never fired the rifle.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 25, 2018, 12:06:45 AM
The fingerprint evidence against Oswald is a joke. But it is more than that, it is evidence of conspiracy. In all 3 cases where Oswald's prints showed up, they were sorely lacking in frequency considering how much he had supposedly handled those items. The FBI, SS and Dallas Police really dropped the ball on their sheep-dipping of Oswald. They got him to pose for pics in his backyard with the murder weapons but they didn't sight in his scope or get more of his prints on the rifle, the bag and the boxes.

Tell me how it is possible to leave so few prints on the following items (without wearing gloves)?

Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence

The Bag

Summary: LHO allegedly manhandled the bag and put the disassembled rifle into it, wonky scope included, carried it into the TSBD, then manhandled the bag while removing the rifle parts from it, and the only prints he got on the bag were a right palm print and his left pinky fingerprint. How was that possible?

The Boxes

Summary: LHO left 1 left palm print on Box A, 1 right palm print on Box D, far fewer prints than Studebaker or Lucy.


The Rifle

Summary: LHO had no prints on the MC's barrel, bolt, trigger, stock, clip, ammo, scope and strap even though he supposedly disassembled/reassembled and fired the rifle. The only print of LHO on the rifle was put there post-mortem by the FBI. Just ask Paul Groody.


Conclusion: Oswald never fired the rifle.

Not that you're exaggerating by claiming he 'manhandled' the items.

Read a book and find that usuable prints are hard to find at the best of times, the stock was too rough to capture few usuable prints if any, and Oswald could have been (inadvertently or otherwise) smearing potential fingerprint evidence simply while in the act of handling the bag and rifle.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 25, 2018, 12:27:28 AM
Read a book and find that usuable prints are hard to find at the best of times, the stock was too rough to capture few usuable prints if any, and Oswald could have been (inadvertently or otherwise) smearing potential fingerprint evidence simply while in the act of handling the bag and rifle.

So you read a book and are now an expert dermatoglyphicist? LOL

Do you actually believe that Oswald disassembled/reassembled the MC, fired it 3 times, ditched it and didn't leave any discernible prints on the stock, trigger, bolt, barrel, ammo, clip, scope and strap? Some expert.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 25, 2018, 12:49:13 AM
So you read a book and are now an expert dermatoglyphicist? LOL

Do you actually believe that Oswald disassembled/reassembled the MC, fired it 3 times, ditched it and didn't leave any discernible prints on the stock, trigger, bolt, barrel, ammo, clip, scope and strap? Some expert.

Where did I claim to be an expert regarding fingerprint evidence? Science informs us that usable fingerprints are hard to find at the best of times.. like I reported in my last post.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Alan Hardaker on November 25, 2018, 12:56:57 AM
Given that CT's routinely question every tiny discrepancy regarding evidence against Oswald and exaggerate the importance of such discrepancy, it's entirely acceptable to speculate on Oswald wearing gloves.

In fact in a tradition that CT's will recognise I say Oswald did wear gloves and disposed of them sometime after leaving the TSBD. It makes sense. Obviously Oswald being a cunning shrewd operator gloves would've been one of the first things he thought about in preparation for his act of barbarity.

That's why his dabs are not all over the rifle. He left the SN in close to clean pristine condition.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Alan Hardaker on November 25, 2018, 01:01:43 AM
And in fact workers who carry and handle cardboard boxes do indeed wear gloves as the cardboard dries out the skin and you end up with sores on the finger and thumb crevices. To avoid this they wear gloves.So there you have it...he wore gloves..problem solved.End of Story.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 25, 2018, 02:01:08 AM
And in fact workers who carry and handle cardboard boxes do indeed wear gloves as the cardboard dries out the skin and you end up with sores on the finger and thumb crevices. To avoid this they wear gloves.So there you have it...he wore gloves..problem solved.End of Story.

You mean LHO wore gloves and scored 2 hits using a wonky scope on a cheap rifle he had never practiced with before? Why would any military marksman/assassin do that?

ps. The Magic Gloves?
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Mitch Todd on November 25, 2018, 04:34:16 AM
So you read a book and are now an expert dermatoglyphicist? LOL

Since when were you an expert on fingerprinting?
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 25, 2018, 09:23:58 PM
Since when were you an expert on fingerprinting?

Obviously, I'm not cuz I didn't read a book. So is this all you LNers got? Sad.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Alan Hardaker on November 25, 2018, 09:41:28 PM
You mean LHO wore gloves and scored 2 hits using a wonky scope on a cheap rifle he had never practiced with before? Why would any military marksman/assassin do that?

ps. The Magic Gloves?

I wasn't commenting on the quality of the weapon or the accuracy of the gunman, I was merely speculating that Oswald wore gloves, that would go some way to explain the lack of fingerprint evidence. I also pointed out that many warehouse workers do wear gloves because cardboard dries out the skin and gloves may have been readily available. It is a perfectly logical explanation for the lack of dabs.

Even by some strange quirk of fate that Oswald was not the gunmen then whoever it was wore gloves. Why would somebody leave their prints all over the alleged snipers nest and the weapon. And could easily have been thin cotton gloves that would not hinder the operation of the weapon.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Mitch Todd on November 26, 2018, 02:55:48 AM

Mitch Todd: Since when were you an expert on fingerprinting?

Obviously, I'm not cuz I didn't read a book. So is this all you LNers got? Sad.
You got it the wrong way 'round. It's all 'bout what little you got.

You have no idea how many identifiable finger and palm prints Oswald would have left, but you still feel entitled to tell us. And then you resort to putting words into Groody's mouth. All because you have nothing to begin with, and want to trumpet it loudly.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 26, 2018, 06:00:15 AM
Given that CT's routinely question every tiny discrepancy regarding evidence against Oswald and exaggerate the importance of such discrepancy, it's entirely acceptable to speculate on Oswald wearing gloves.

In fact in a tradition that CT's will recognise I say Oswald did wear gloves and disposed of them sometime after leaving the TSBD. It makes sense. Obviously Oswald being a cunning shrewd operator gloves would've been one of the first things he thought about in preparation for his act of barbarity.

That's why his dabs are not all over the rifle. He left the SN in close to clean pristine condition.

Re fingerprints in gun crimes, the rule of thumb (see what I did there?) for professionals is to remember to wear their turtle doves. Only opportunists or amateurs would be likely to forget to do so, apparently.

Given lack of proof that the shooter was wearing gloves (including no mention of same by Euins nor Brennan), one can reasonably argue that the shooter was more of an opportunist rather than an experienced hitman.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Brown on November 26, 2018, 07:43:15 AM
The man shooting a rifle out the window was described as wearing a light-colored shirt.  Oswald could have been wearing only the white t-shirt during the shooting, with the brown arrest shirt laying on a nearby box.  After the shooting, while making his way across the sixth floor towards the stairs, Oswald uses the brown arrest shirt to wipe down the rifle in an attempt to clear it of prints.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 27, 2018, 01:11:53 AM
You got it the wrong way 'round. It's all 'bout what little you got.

You have no idea how many identifiable finger and palm prints Oswald would have left, but you still feel entitled to tell us. And then you resort to putting words into Groody's mouth. All because you have nothing to begin with, and want to trumpet it loudly.

No, as usual, you got it wrong. As a layman, I am just stating the obvious and hoping an expert can set me straight. All you LNers got is to discredit, dismiss, ignore, move on. Logisticians you ain't.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 27, 2018, 01:50:23 AM
I wasn't commenting on the quality of the weapon or the accuracy of the gunman, I was merely speculating that Oswald wore gloves, that would go some way to explain the lack of fingerprint evidence. I also pointed out that many warehouse workers do wear gloves because cardboard dries out the skin and gloves may have been readily available. It is a perfectly logical explanation for the lack of dabs.

Even by some strange quirk of fate that Oswald was not the gunmen then whoever it was wore gloves. Why would somebody leave their prints all over the alleged snipers nest and the weapon. And could easily have been thin cotton gloves that would not hinder the operation of the weapon.

Good points. Oswald must have worn gloves to  produce so few prints. So are we now looking for Oswald's gloves?
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Mitch Todd on November 27, 2018, 03:59:24 AM
No, as usual, you got it wrong. As a layman, I am just stating the obvious and hoping an expert can set me straight. All you LNers got is to discredit, dismiss, ignore, move on. Logisticians you ain't.

A layman looking for expert advice doesn't start a thread like this:

The fingerprint evidence against Oswald is a joke. But it is more than that, it is evidence of conspiracy. In all 3 cases where Oswald's prints showed up, they were sorely lacking in frequency considering how much he had supposedly handled those items. The FBI, SS and Dallas Police really dropped the ball on their sheep-dipping of Oswald. They got him to pose for pics in his backyard with the murder weapons but they didn't sight in his scope or get more of his prints on the rifle, the bag and the boxes.

Nor does someone looking advice from a fingerprint expert start their search on a JFK forum.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 27, 2018, 06:46:35 AM
The man shooting a rifle out the window was described as wearing a light-colored shirt.  Oswald could have been wearing only the white t-shirt during the shooting, with the brown arrest shirt laying on a nearby box.  After the shooting, while making his way across the sixth floor towards the stairs, Oswald uses the brown arrest shirt to wipe down the rifle in an attempt to clear it of prints.

Yes, he might have taken the precaution to avoid having the shirt sleeves snag on something in the process of operating the weapon.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Richard Smith on November 27, 2018, 01:49:49 PM
One print is enough to associate Oswald with the rifle.  The prisons are full of criminals who left one print, hair, or drop of blood at a crime scene.  And Oswald's prints were also found on the SN boxes and bag.   If the FBI and DPD were involved in framing Oswald, they would have confirmed more prints on the rifle whether they were there or not.  If this tells us anything it is that they were not attempting to frame Oswald and his prints were found on these items.  I don't believe Oswald wore gloves during the assassination because he was smart enough to know it didn't matter, but who knows.  Using 1963 technology, it is entirely possible that few prints would show up on the rifle and maybe Oswald had wiped it down the night before.  Suggesting that in someone's subjective opinion that there should have been more prints found is not persuasive of anything.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 27, 2018, 06:46:18 PM
A layman looking for expert advice doesn't start a thread like this:

According to whom, you?

Quote
Nor does someone looking advice from a fingerprint expert start their search on a JFK forum.

I wanted a LNer to quote some expert testimony that it wouldn't be unusual for so few prints to show up on items that were heavily handled, especially the rifle. Not to tell me to go read a book.

Face it, the fingerprint evidence SUCKS and you can't defend it. But when push comes to shove, you LNers are all about discrediting and obfuscation, cuz that's all you got.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 27, 2018, 07:08:06 PM
One print is enough to associate Oswald with the rifle.  The prisons are full of criminals who left one print, hair, or drop of blood at a crime scene.  And Oswald's prints were also found on the SN boxes and bag.   If the FBI and DPD were involved in framing Oswald, they would have confirmed more prints on the rifle whether they were there or not.  If this tells us anything it is that they were not attempting to frame Oswald and his prints were found on these items.  I don't believe Oswald wore gloves during the assassination because he was smart enough to know it didn't matter, but who knows.  Using 1963 technology, it is entirely possible that few prints would show up on the rifle and maybe Oswald had wiped it down the night before.  Suggesting that in someone's subjective opinion that there should have been more prints found is not persuasive of anything.

1 post-mortem palm print on the rifle that he disassembled/reassembled and fired 3 times.
1 palm print + 1 pinkyprint on the bag he handled extensively.
1 palm print on 1 box, 1 palm print on another box and no other prints on all the other boxes on the 6th floor.

And being a LNer, the lack of fingerprint evidence is AOK with you as long as 1 piece of evidence puts your boy as the shooter. Even if the only print on the rifle was put there post-mortem? Oh right, you don't believe that and even if true, the FBI had damn good reason and honorable motives to do so.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Richard Smith on November 27, 2018, 07:35:00 PM
1 post-mortem palm print on the rifle that he disassembled/reassembled and fired 3 times.
1 palm print + 1 pinkyprint on the bag he handled extensively.
1 palm print on 1 box, 1 palm print on another box and no other prints on all the other boxes on the 6th floor.

And being a LNer, the lack of fingerprint evidence is AOK with you as long as 1 piece of evidence puts your boy as the shooter. Even if the only print on the rifle was put there post-mortem? Oh right, you don't believe that and even if true, the FBI had damn good reason and honorable motives to do so.

The fingerprint evidence links Oswald to all these items beyond any doubt whether it is one print or a thousand.  There is zero credible evidence that they were planted.  Your subjective and unsubstantiated non-expert opinion that there should have been more prints is worthless nor does it rebut the actual evidence.  A slam dunk guilty conviction. 
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Pat Speer on November 27, 2018, 08:43:34 PM
The man shooting a rifle out the window was described as wearing a light-colored shirt.  Oswald could have been wearing only the white t-shirt during the shooting, with the brown arrest shirt laying on a nearby box.  After the shooting, while making his way across the sixth floor towards the stairs, Oswald uses the brown arrest shirt to wipe down the rifle in an attempt to clear it of prints.

This theory doesn't hold up. The rifle had prints on the trigger guard (the first place Oswald would have wiped) which were not smeared.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 27, 2018, 11:30:03 PM
According to whom, you?

I wanted a LNer to quote some expert testimony that it wouldn't be unusual for so few prints to show up on items that were heavily handled, especially the rifle. Not to tell me to go read a book.

Face it, the fingerprint evidence SUCKS and you can't defend it. But when push comes to shove, you LNers are all about discrediting and obfuscation, cuz that's all you got.

All you've got is AnybodyButOswald.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 27, 2018, 11:35:45 PM
This theory doesn't hold up. The rifle had prints on the trigger guard (the first place Oswald would have wiped) which were not smeared.

I heard they were smudged and not usable
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 28, 2018, 07:11:29 AM
Obviously, I'm not cuz I didn't read a book. So is this all you LNers got? Sad.

Why are you attempting to substitute opinion for science? Just how much effort does it take to read up on the subject?

I posted this several months ago:

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/why-we-dont-find-fingerprints-on-firearms/
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Brown on November 28, 2018, 08:23:06 AM
The man shooting a rifle out the window was described as wearing a light-colored shirt.  Oswald could have been wearing only the white t-shirt during the shooting, with the brown arrest shirt laying on a nearby box.  After the shooting, while making his way across the sixth floor towards the stairs, Oswald uses the brown arrest shirt to wipe down the rifle in an attempt to clear it of prints.

This theory doesn't hold up. The rifle had prints on the trigger guard (the first place Oswald would have wiped) which were not smeared.

Your post assumes two things.

One, Oswald would be sure to wipe the trigger guard.

Two, Oswald, if he tried to wipe the trigger guard, did it successfully.

Personally, I think it's as simple as the wooden stock of the rifle was too rough to hold prints.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Rob Caprio on November 28, 2018, 03:49:20 PM
The man shooting a rifle out the window was described as wearing a light-colored shirt.  Oswald could have been wearing only the white t-shirt during the shooting, with the brown arrest shirt laying on a nearby box.  After the shooting, while making his way across the sixth floor towards the stairs, Oswald uses the brown arrest shirt to wipe down the rifle in an attempt to clear it of prints.

This sounds like a guess to me. A guess DVP has made for years. We are talking just 90 seconds here. If he did this, how did he have time to do everything else that was claimed of him?
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Rob Caprio on November 28, 2018, 03:52:45 PM
Yes, he might have taken the precaution to avoid having the shirt sleeves snag on something in the process of operating the weapon.

So explain how the shirt fibers allegedly got on the rifle butt then.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Rob Caprio on November 28, 2018, 03:54:56 PM
One print is enough to associate Oswald with the rifle.  The prisons are full of criminals who left one print, hair, or drop of blood at a crime scene.  And Oswald's prints were also found on the SN boxes and bag.   If the FBI and DPD were involved in framing Oswald, they would have confirmed more prints on the rifle whether they were there or not.  If this tells us anything it is that they were not attempting to frame Oswald and his prints were found on these items.  I don't believe Oswald wore gloves during the assassination because he was smart enough to know it didn't matter, but who knows.  Using 1963 technology, it is entirely possible that few prints would show up on the rifle and maybe Oswald had wiped it down the night before.  Suggesting that in someone's subjective opinion that there should have been more prints found is not persuasive of anything.

Rubbish. A print means he touched the gun. It doesn't prove that he fired it at JFK.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Rob Caprio on November 28, 2018, 03:58:09 PM
The fingerprint evidence links Oswald to all these items beyond any doubt whether it is one print or a thousand.  There is zero credible evidence that they were planted.  Your subjective and unsubstantiated non-expert opinion that there should have been more prints is worthless nor does it rebut the actual evidence.  A slam dunk guilty conviction.

Who made the link?
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Rob Caprio on November 28, 2018, 04:01:41 PM
All you've got is AnybodyButOswald.

All you've got is NobodyButOswald with NO supporting evidence.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Rob Caprio on November 28, 2018, 04:05:43 PM
Your post assumes two things.

One, Oswald would be sure to wipe the trigger guard.

Two, Oswald, if he tried to wipe the trigger guard, did it successfully.

Personally, I think it's as simple as the wooden stock of the rifle was too rough to hold prints.

Says the guy who assumed that LHO's took his shirt off for the alleged shooting and then used it to wipe down the rifle.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Brown on November 28, 2018, 11:34:12 PM
Says the guy who assumed that LHO's took his shirt off for the alleged shooting and then used it to wipe down the rifle.

I made no such assumption.  You're not bright enough to understand, though.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Rob Caprio on November 29, 2018, 05:04:29 AM
I made no such assumption.  You're not bright enough to understand, though.

So you were there on 11/22/63?
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 29, 2018, 05:32:23 AM
All you've got is NobodyButOswald with NO supporting evidence.

You've got NO candidate to supplant Oswald as prime suspect. I've posted two topics requesting same, but y'all seem caught out like a deer in the headlights. Why is that?

My research reveals that 5 witnesses ID'd Oswald at the Tippit scene: another one saw him with pistol raised up, walking right past him, muttering something about a poor dumb cop.

Yes... Oswald, who just happened to work in the building that gave a somewhat opportunistic shooter a bird's eye view to a kill.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Brown on November 29, 2018, 12:57:50 PM
Says the guy who assumed that LHO's took his shirt off for the alleged shooting and then used it to wipe down the rifle.

I made no such assumption.  You're not bright enough to understand, though.

So you were there on 11/22/63?


I rest my case.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Rob Caprio on November 29, 2018, 05:25:45 PM
You've got NO candidate to supplant Oswald as prime suspect. I've posted two topics requesting same, but y'all seem caught out like a deer in the headlights. Why is that?

My research reveals that 5 witnesses ID'd Oswald at the Tippit scene: another one saw him with pistol raised up, walking right past him, muttering something about a poor dumb cop.

Yes... Oswald, who just happened to work in the building that gave a somewhat opportunistic shooter a bird's eye view to a kill.

I don't know where you reside, but in the United States it is not required to name a suspect to show your innocence. LHO, or anyone else, doesn't have to do this.

Conversely,  the failure to show who was involved in the conspiracy does NOT make LHO guilty. Only the evidence can do that and that shows a conspiracy took place in the assassination of JFK.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Rob Caprio on November 29, 2018, 05:26:54 PM

I rest my case.

You offered your opinion on what LHO did, but you WEREN'T there and have NO evidence to support your opinion, thus, it is an ASSUMPTION by you.

You have NO case to rest.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 29, 2018, 09:42:37 PM
You've got NO candidate to supplant Oswald as prime suspect. I've posted two topics requesting same, but y'all seem caught out like a deer in the headlights. Why is that?

My research reveals that 5 witnesses ID'd Oswald at the Tippit scene: another one saw him with pistol raised up, walking right past him, muttering something about a poor dumb cop.

Yes... Oswald, who just happened to work in the building that gave a somewhat opportunistic shooter a bird's eye view to a kill.

But how does any of this make Oswald a lone nut assassin? This isn't a courtroom, we are only discussing the relevance of any fingerprint evidence. God forbid we try to piece together the puzzle on a JFK forum.

The problem with the LNer position is they aren't actually LNers, they are "Coincidence Theorists" (CTs) and all their eggs are in the LNer basket. They can't concede a single point or they are done. LHO must have done it exactly the way the WC lays out or it all goes up in smoke. Imagine decades shilling for the conspirators. In for a penny.

My only point to this thread was to expose blatant anomalies in the data. I Googled the "lack of prints do not exonerate Oswald" sites and I agree, generally that prints don't always show up in the frequency you would expect, however, they do not address Oswald's case specifically. We are talking about EXTENSIVE handling of several items and only 6 prints total and nary a print on the rifle. You don't need to be an expert to know BS when you smell it. And this is all a game of public opinion, after all. Not some LNer courtroom where you guys can deny any damn thing you like for any reason just because the CTs don't have a smoking gun.

The conspirators thank you LNers for your patronage as the few remaining laugh themselves into the sunset.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 29, 2018, 11:39:42 PM
But how does any of this make Oswald a lone nut assassin? This isn't a courtroom, we are only discussing the relevance of any fingerprint evidence. God forbid we try to piece together the puzzle on a JFK forum.

The problem with the LNer position is they aren't actually LNers, they are "Coincidence Theorists" (CTs) and all their eggs are in the LNer basket. They can't concede a single point or they are done. LHO must have done it exactly the way the WC lays out or it all goes up in smoke. Imagine decades shilling for the conspirators. In for a penny.

My only point to this thread was to expose blatant anomalies in the data. I Googled the "lack of prints do not exonerate Oswald" sites and I agree, generally that prints don't always show up in the frequency you would expect, however, they do not address Oswald's case specifically. We are talking about EXTENSIVE handling of several items and only 6 prints total and nary a print on the rifle. You don't need to be an expert to know BS when you smell it. And this is all a game of public opinion, after all. Not some LNer courtroom where you guys can deny any damn thing you like for any reason just because the CTs don't have a smoking gun.

The conspirators thank you LNers for your patronage as the few remaining laugh themselves into the sunset.

You lost me at the last line. And it seems to me that conspiracy-mongers are the ones marginalized. Further to that, I suspect that conspiracists in general feel somewhat powerless and marginalized in their lives.

Any puzzlement about the assassination is your burden. Any 'court-of-law' feel here comes from Weidmann + Iacoletti Roving Barristers, Inc.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 29, 2018, 11:59:31 PM
You lost me at the last line. And it seems to me that conspiracy-mongers are the ones marginalized. Further to that, I suspect that conspiracists in general feel somewhat powerless and marginalized in their lives.

Any puzzlement about the assassination is your burden. Any 'court-of-law' feel here comes from Weidmann + Iacoletti Roving Barristers, Inc.

Any 'court-of-law' feel here comes from Weidmann + Iacoletti Roving Barristers, Inc.

I've wondered for some time now why LNs don't like questions and even less like answering them. It seems you've just told me why?
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Brown on November 30, 2018, 04:03:09 AM
You offered your opinion on what LHO did, but you WEREN'T there and have NO evidence to support your opinion, thus, it is an ASSUMPTION by you.

You have NO case to rest.


Quote
You offered your opinion on what LHO did...

No I didn't.

Again, you're just too stupid to understand and I'm not going to explain it to you.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Rob Caprio on November 30, 2018, 04:19:53 AM

No I didn't.

Again, you're just too stupid to understand and I'm not going to explain it to you.

Sure. Run Brown, run. Your point is worthless anyway.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 30, 2018, 06:36:24 AM
Any 'court-of-law' feel here comes from Weidmann + Iacoletti Roving Barristers, Inc.

I've wondered for some time now why LNs don't like questions and even less like answering them. It seems you've just told me why?

Wonder no longer: Reasonable people everywhere think conspiracy-mongers silly and worthy only of mockery.... barrister.

And thanks for confirming my suggestion that you treat this forum as a courtroom rather than as a discussion forum
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 30, 2018, 07:07:47 AM
I don't know where you reside, but in the United States it is not required to name a suspect to show your innocence. LHO, or anyone else, doesn't have to do this.

Conversely,  the failure to show who was involved in the conspiracy does NOT make LHO guilty. Only the evidence can do that and that shows a conspiracy took place in the assassination of JFK.

Show us where I said Oswald was anything more than the prime suspect.

And point out someone, other than the shooter, who knew there was some heavy xxxx about to go down in Dealey Plaza that day. Without that, you have NO conspiracy.


Again, again, and yet again... did you figure out why the investigators ran the paraffin tests on Oswald, even knowing them inadmissible as evidence?
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 30, 2018, 09:39:43 AM
Wonder no longer: Reasonable people everywhere think conspiracy-mongers silly and worthy only of mockery.... barrister.

And thanks for confirming my suggestion that you treat this forum as a courtroom rather than as a discussion forum

Reasonable people everywhere think conspiracy-mongers silly and worthy only of mockery

I don't believe this for a second. You're going to have to provide some proof for this, if you don't want this statement to be considered to be highly unreasonable.

And thanks for confirming my suggestion that you treat this forum as a courtroom rather than as a discussion forum

Where did I confirm that? I can't help it what your "court-of-law feel" is....
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Rob Caprio on November 30, 2018, 02:50:58 PM
Show us where I said Oswald was anything more than the prime suspect.

And point out someone, other than the shooter, who knew there was some heavy xxxx about to go down in Dealey Plaza that day. Without that, you have NO conspiracy.


Again, again, and yet again... did you figure out why the investigators ran the paraffin tests on Oswald, even knowing them inadmissible as evidence?

That isn't how you phrase it. No one else needs to be named to show that LHO is innocent of the shootings.

Numerous people had advanced knowledge, and my series showed that, but you would just mock them anyway.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Mitch Todd on December 01, 2018, 01:46:14 AM
Mitch Todd: A layman looking for expert advice doesn't start a thread like this:

"The fingerprint evidence against Oswald is a joke. But it is more than that, it is evidence of conspiracy. In all 3 cases where Oswald's prints showed up, they were sorely lacking in frequency considering how much he had supposedly handled those items. The FBI, SS and Dallas Police really dropped the ball on their sheep-dipping of Oswald. They got him to pose for pics in his backyard with the murder weapons but they didn't sight in his scope or get more of his prints on the rifle, the bag and the boxes."


According to whom, you?

According to anyone who's honest with themselves.

I wanted a LNer to quote some expert testimony that it wouldn't be unusual for so few prints to show up on items that were heavily handled, especially the rifle. Not to tell me to go read a book.

So now the truth finally comes out! You didn't really care about what the experts would say, only if someone else would quote them for you. At best, that's lazy. More likely, you don't actually care about anything the experts would say; you just want to declare yourself the  winner of your own internet p1$51n6 match, all the while remaining blissfully ignorant of the subject at hand. To bend Dean Wormer around a bit, blind, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.

Face it, the fingerprint evidence SUCKS and you can't defend it. But when push comes to shove, you LNers are all about discrediting and obfuscation, cuz that's all you got.

"But when push comes to shove, you LNers are all about discrediting and obfuscation, cuz that's all you got."

....so says guy who's loudly trying to discredit the fingerprint evidence. You don't even understand that you are doing exactly what you hate to see others do, and doing it simultaneously as you excoriate others for it. I wouldn't have imagined that you could behave so stupidly, but there it is in black and white. Take a bow, kid, that was quite an achievement!

In the end, it's up to you to show that the fingerprint results are truly anomalous. If you can't, then that's your problem and not ours. More importantly, it's your burden. Don't be a Caprio and demand that others disprove the random assertions that you spew.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Jack Trojan on December 02, 2018, 12:58:27 AM
According to anyone who's honest with themselves.

So now the truth finally comes out! You didn't really care about what the experts would say, only if someone else would quote them for you. At best, that's lazy. More likely, you don't actually care about anything the experts would say; you just want to declare yourself the  winner of your own internet p1$51n6 match, all the while remaining blissfully ignorant of the subject at hand. To bend Dean Wormer around a bit, blind, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.

"But when push comes to shove, you LNers are all about discrediting and obfuscation, cuz that's all you got."

....so says guy who's loudly trying to discredit the fingerprint evidence. You don't even understand that you are doing exactly what you hate to see others do, and doing it simultaneously as you excoriate others for it. I wouldn't have imagined that you could behave so stupidly, but there it is in black and white. Take a bow, kid, that was quite an achievement!

In the end, it's up to you to show that the fingerprint results are truly anomalous. If you can't, then that's your problem and not ours. More importantly, it's your burden. Don't be a Caprio and demand that others disprove the random assertions that you spew.

Firstly, you need to relax cuz you are taking this way too personally. But thanks for the psychotherapy anyways. So why do you LNers always go there? Because you got nothing.

I'm not trying to win anything here. I am only pointing out anomalies as I see them. Are you so jaded that you accept on faith that it is no big deal that Oswald disassembled the rifle, placed it into the bag, smuggled it into the TSBD, removed it from the bag, reassembled it, fired it at least 3 times, then ditched it without leaving a single print on the rifle? He made it to the 2nd floor in 90 seconds so he didn't have time to wipe off his prints or ditch the gloves.  Do I really need to find some expert to tell me that's par for the course when handling a firearm?

Instead you give me free psychoanalysis re my motives for even starting this thread. Like I continue to say...is that all you LNers got? Sad.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Jack Trojan on December 02, 2018, 01:17:10 AM
Show us where I said Oswald was anything more than the prime suspect.

And point out someone, other than the shooter, who knew there was some heavy xxxx about to go down in Dealey Plaza that day. Without that, you have NO conspiracy.


Again, again, and yet again... did you figure out why the investigators ran the paraffin tests on Oswald, even knowing them inadmissible as evidence?

Would you buy ANY name that someone threw out there? Otherwise, what's your xxxx point?

The paraffin tests showed that Oswald had no residue on his face after shooting the mannlicher carcano at least 3 times. How was that possible?
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 03, 2018, 08:54:26 AM
Would you buy ANY name that someone threw out there? Otherwise, what's your xxxx point?

All you lot have is rumours and speculation. That's the reason none of you will commit to naming anyone.

You lot claim anyone but Oswald so why don't you provide names and at least circumstantial evidence that would supplant --- or at least reasonably challenge --- Oswald's status as prime suspect. 
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 03, 2018, 09:31:16 AM
Reasonable people everywhere think conspiracy-mongers silly and worthy only of mockery

I don't believe this for a second. You're going to have to provide some proof for this, if you don't want this statement to be considered to be highly unreasonable.

And thanks for confirming my suggestion that you treat this forum as a courtroom rather than as a discussion forum

Where did I confirm that? I can't help it what your "court-of-law feel" is....

You are mocked but won't accept it as mockery. And you definitely treat this forum as a courtroom.

If you ask me.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 03, 2018, 11:28:02 AM

You are mocked but won't accept it as mockery. And you definitely treat this forum as a courtroom.

If you ask me.

You are mocked but won't accept it as mockery.

So, you can not back up your claim.... got it! So much for "reasonable people"

Btw when you restort to mockery, instead of providing evidence and answers, all you are doing is exposing the weakness of your case.

And you definitely treat this forum as a courtroom.

If you ask me.


Nobody asked you.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Walt Cakebread on December 03, 2018, 02:55:56 PM
You are mocked but won't accept it as mockery. And you definitely treat this forum as a courtroom.

If you ask me.

you definitely treat this forum as a courtroom.

And what's wrong with that, Chappie? 

As Joe Friday used to say...  Yes Ma'am,... Just the FACTS Ma'am, We're just looking for the FACTS  Ma'am.

 
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Mitch Todd on December 07, 2018, 04:20:39 AM
Firstly, you need to relax cuz you are taking this way too personally. But thanks for the psychotherapy anyways. So why do you LNers always go there? Because you got nothing.

I'm not the guy taking it personally.

I'm not trying to win anything here.

I didn't say you were. I said you wanted to declare yourself the winner a priori. That's not the same thing as winning. In fact, it's almost always a loss once you look at it honestly.

I am only pointing out anomalies as I see them.

Fundamentally, that's just a variation of the the tired, old "just askin' questions, man" defense. Except you're not really asking questions. You've already already preempted that by broadcasting your conclusion at the beginning of your first post: "The fingerprint evidence against Oswald is a joke. But it is more than that, it is evidence of conspiracy." 

More specifically, you haven't shown that there really are any "anomolies." Nor have you given us any indication that you know enough about the subject so that "as I see them" holds any weight.

Are you so jaded that you accept on faith that it is no big deal that Oswald disassembled the rifle, placed it into the bag, smuggled it into the TSBD, removed it from the bag, reassembled it, fired it at least 3 times, then ditched it without leaving a single print on the rifle? He made it to the 2nd floor in 90 seconds so he didn't have time to wipe off his prints or ditch the gloves.  Do I really need to find some expert to tell me that's par for the course when handling a firearm?

I'm definitely jaded. I've spent decades watching any number of third rate dilettante sleuths confidently jabber well above their pay grade, only to be exposed as duckspeakers, fools, charlatans, and bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns artists the as soon as the real experts show up. Again, Robert Groden is a poster boy here. Sometimes, even people widely considered to be real experts get exposed, too (hello, Michael West!). If you want everyone else to believe that the number of prints are anomalous, then you need to show what would actually be expected based on (say) a survey of other similar cases. Just declaring "it's an anomaly as I see it" isn't going to make any headway outside of your circle of True Believers.

Instead you give me free psychoanalysis re my motives for even starting this thread. Like I continue to say...is that all you LNers got? Sad.

It doesn't take Sigmund Freud's mad skillz to notice the your internal contradictions. When you do things like complain that "...LNers are all about discrediting and obfuscation" at the same time you're trying --kinda lamely-- to discredit the fingerprint evidence, everyone will notice the cognative dissonance rattling around inside your head.


Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Jack Trojan on December 07, 2018, 07:06:19 PM
I'm not the guy taking it personally.

I didn't say you were. I said you wanted to declare yourself the winner a priori. That's not the same thing as winning. In fact, it's almost always a loss once you look at it honestly.

Fundamentally, that's just a variation of the the tired, old "just askin' questions, man" defense. Except you're not really asking questions. You've already already preempted that by broadcasting your conclusion at the beginning of your first post: "The fingerprint evidence against Oswald is a joke. But it is more than that, it is evidence of conspiracy." 

More specifically, you haven't shown that there really are any "anomolies." Nor have you given us any indication that you know enough about the subject so that "as I see them" holds any weight.

I'm definitely jaded. I've spent decades watching any number of third rate dilettante sleuths confidently jabber well above their pay grade, only to be exposed as duckspeakers, fools, charlatans, and bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns artists the as soon as the real experts show up. Again, Robert Groden is a poster boy here. Sometimes, even people widely considered to be real experts get exposed, too (hello, Michael West!). If you want everyone else to believe that the number of prints are anomalous, then you need to show what would actually be expected based on (say) a survey of other similar cases. Just declaring "it's an anomaly as I see it" isn't going to make any headway outside of your circle of True Believers.

It doesn't take Sigmund Freud's mad skillz to notice the your internal contradictions. When you do things like complain that "...LNers are all about discrediting and obfuscation" at the same time you're trying --kinda lamely-- to discredit the fingerprint evidence, everyone will notice the cognative dissonance rattling around inside your head.

:D Still got nothing, I see. Are you so lacking in common sense that you think that disassembling a rifle, placing it into a paper bag, removing it from the bag, reassembling its parts and firing it at least 3 times and not leaving a single print on the stock, barrel, scope, bolt, trigger, strap, clip and ammo does not constitute an anomaly? Do you really need an expert to confirm that? I'd say you've got a bad case of LNeritis, and you've had it for decades, apparently. But I'm no expert, so what do I know?
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 08, 2018, 01:25:01 AM


>>>You are mocked but won't accept it as mockery<<<
So, you can not back up your claim.... got it! So much for "reasonable people
>>> You just being yourself backs up my claim

Btw when you restort to mockery, instead of providing evidence and answers, all you are doing is exposing the weakness of your case.
>>> Btw the evidence is not mine. It is only made available for assessment. As are the 55 years of kooky conspiracy-monger speculation. Btw Oswald was the only person on the face of the planet seen to be in attendance at both murders.

Nobody asked you.
>>> Yet you responded
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 08, 2018, 01:32:42 AM
>>>You are mocked but won't accept it as mockery<<<
So, you can not back up your claim.... got it! So much for "reasonable people
>>> You just being yourself backs up my claim

Btw when you restort to mockery, instead of providing evidence and answers, all you are doing is exposing the weakness of your case.
>>> Btw the evidence is not mine. It is only made available for assessment. As are the 55 years of unreasonable conspiracy-monger speculation.

Nobody asked you.
>>> Yet you responded

You seem agitated?. Did you have a bad week, perhaps?

Everything going well at your end... or are you just being a typical obnoxious LN who thinks he knows it all?
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 08, 2018, 03:01:53 AM
You seem agitated?. Did you have a bad week, perhaps?

Everything going well at your end... or are you just being a typical obnoxious LN who thinks he knows it all?

Given the oddly adolescent nature of your response, I'd say you're the one with his shorts in a knot. And I can see why you find us lemmings obnoxious. After all, what CTer wants anyone disagreeing with them?

Know-it-all? Well, I know this:

A) Oswald was the only person on the face of the planet who was seen at both crime scenes.
B) No one can show that anyone but the prime suspect knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 08, 2018, 03:12:21 AM
Given the oddly adolescent nature of your response, I'd say you're the one with his shorts in a knot. And I can see why you find us
lemmings obnoxious. After all, what CTer wants anyone disagreeing with them?

Know-it-all? Well, I know this:

A) Oswald was the only person on the face of the planet who was seen at both crime scenes.
B) No one can show that anyone but the prime suspect knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day

Given the oddly adolescent nature of your response, I'd say you're the one with his shorts in a knot.

I was just wondering about your state of mind, but I see everything is "normal" with you.   Thumb1:


And I can see why you find us lemmings obnoxious.

Not "us"... just you

After all, what CTer wants anyone disagreeing with them? 

I have no idea what CTers want and I think neither do you.

Know-it-all? Well, I know this:

A) Oswald was the only person on the face of the planet who was seen at both crime scenes.
B) No one can show that anyone but the prime suspect knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day


Well, that's exactly what I mean... you seem to "know" things that others somehow don't know or are not convinced of.

But I'm glad to see you are just being your usual self....


Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 12, 2018, 11:11:39 PM
One print is enough to associate Oswald with the rifle.

Too bad there isn't one.
Title: Re: Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 12, 2018, 11:14:16 PM
You lot claim anyone but Oswald so why don't you provide names and at least circumstantial evidence that would supplant --- or at least reasonably challenge --- Oswald's status as prime suspect.

Says the guy who has yet to provide any evidence to justify calling Oswald the prime suspect.