Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence

[Bill Chapman]

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/

[Bill Brown]

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.

[Rob Caprio]

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?

[Rob Caprio]

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.

[Rob Caprio]

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.

[Rob Caprio]

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?

[Rob Caprio]

All you've got is AnybodyButOswald.

All you've got is NobodyButOswald with NO supporting evidence.

[Rob Caprio]

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.