"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review (1 Viewer)

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

So that means what exactly, other than he touched a rifle that he owned?

Keep reading, Neil.

From the same link:

Other experts pointed out that the prints were "fresh" because they would not last long on a smooth, oily metal surface such as the trigger guard housing."

Fresh prints on a rifle that was planted by others, that Oswald never brought into the TSBD, that he never fired? Did they put LHO in a trance, place his fingers on the trigger guard, then spray him with some forget-me gas? Then convince him to leave the building, walk across town and murder a cop?[/QUOTE]

 

[Jeff Gatie]

So *phil, if I read you right, you are alluding to three things. 1) they aren't LHOs prints. Sorry, but the link I gave explains the uninterrupted chain of custody of the FP card used for ID, which was also matched to LHOs Marine prints. 2) the prints were originally not on the rifle, so either: A. They were planted. Sorry, but no one looking to plant prints would be able to predict the pictures taken, or that these pictures would be subject to technology that hadn't been invented yet. So you aren't really suggesting that the prints were planted to be found 3 decades later, finally framing LHO, whom they planned to kill anyway? That's just silly. B. Scalice is yet another of the thousands involved in the coverup. Sorry, but if Scalice was involved, he would have iD'd the prints in 1978, when he was being paid by the HSCA. Why wait till 1993 to join the coverup team?

 

[Neil Brock]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

So that means what exactly, other than he touched a rifle that he owned?

Keep reading, Neil.

From the same link:

Other experts pointed out that the prints were "fresh" because they would not last long on a smooth, oily metal surface such as the trigger guard housing."

Fresh prints on a rifle that was planted by others, that Oswald never brought into the TSBD, that he never fired? Did they put LHO in a trance, place his fingers on the trigger guard, then spray him with some forget-me gas? Then convince him to leave the building, walk across town and murder a cop?[/QUOTE]

Okay, now you've seriously lost me. The prints were discovered 30 years later but they were fresh when they were taken off the rifle on Nov. 22, 1963? Please explain how its possible to discover prints 30 years later and then backdate them to an exact time when they were put on something.

 

[Jack P]

It's quite simple, Neil. The prints are the ones visible on the rifle the day the rifle was found in 1963 and which was photographed from different angles on that day, and which when lifted produced partial prints that were inconclusive (not enough points of identiification) but Scalice discovered in his 1993 re-examination that by combining the different photos taken of the rifle from that first day which had varying degrees of contrast (all of which Scalice did not have accss to in 1978 for his initial re-examination for the House) and studying those prints from before they were lifted, he was able to come up with a match, meaning Lee Harvey Oswald was the one who pulled the trigger of the rifle found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD and found also to be the murder weapon.


These were not "new prints" these were the prints known to have been on the rifle from day one but which at the time yielded an inconclusive match but thanks to later developments in technology makes it possible to make a precise match. It's as simple as that.

 

[David Von Pein]

Video clip with fingerprint expert Vincent Scalice (from "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?"; 1993; PBS-TV):





http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=67A004131C8369A5

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Neil, do you even attempt to read the information provided to you? All the info as to the legacy of the prints was in the link I provided. Is your mind that closed?

 

[Neil Brock]

Originally Posted by Jack P

It's quite simple, Neil. The prints are the ones visible on the rifle the day the rifle was found in 1963 and which was photographed from different angles on that day, and which when lifted produced partial prints that were inconclusive (not enough points of identiification) but Scalice discovered in his 1993 re-examination that by combining the different photos taken of the rifle from that first day which had varying degrees of contrast (all of which Scalice did not have accss to in 1978 for his initial re-examination for the House) and studying those prints from before they were lifted, he was able to come up with a match, meaning Lee Harvey Oswald was the one who pulled the trigger of the rifle found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD and found also to be the murder weapon.


These were not "new prints" these were the prints known to have been on the rifle from day one but which at the time yielded an inconclusive match but thanks to later developments in technology makes it possible to make a precise match. It's as simple as that.

So his fingerprints were proved to be on the rifle. Means what? He touched the rifle. How does that prove he fired the rifle that day? And, if he did, how does that prove he hit the President? And if he did, how does that prove he was the lone shooter? Oh, yes, the magic bullet theory. And the magic bullet that appears at the hospital. Yeah, try getting that bullet admitted into court.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

They were fresh prints Neil. He touched the rifle shortly before it was found. The bullets from that rifle were definitively linked to the fragments in Connally's wrist. As I asked above, did the real shooter put LHO in a trance, force him to touch the gun, dose him with forget-me spray, then fire the rifle himself, without disturbing Oswald's prints? After which he convinces this innocent patsy, who's just sitting there drinking a coke, to flee the building, walk home, get his gun and kill a cop? You've got to be kidding me.

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

They were fresh prints Neil. He touched the rifle shortly before it was found.

*Jeff...as has already been seen, Oswald was fingerprinted AFTER he was shot dead. Is this standard procedure in a homicide investigation? Me thinks not, particularly since Oswald was ALREADY fingerprinted while he was still alive and in police custody. Also, prove to me that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Oswald's fingerprints to have been placed on the rifle after he had expired. And no, I don't mean that "this would have been highly unlikely"..what I would like proof of is this being a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILTY.

 

[Jack P]

The proof of it being a "physical impossibility" is the fact that these particular prints we are talking about are the ones on the rifle on NOVEMBER 22, 1963. These are prints you see on the rifle in a photo taken on NOVEMBER 22, 1963 which is before Oswald died.


And Neil, as for it proving he fired the rifle, maybe you could explain with a straight face just what is the purpose of the rifle being there in that room if not as the murder weapon? Don't tell me it was planted to frame him, because that argument is so silly it's amazing how buffdom feels this need to resort to it. Just try to picture a sophisiticated group of conspirators getting together for that purpose to come up with that precision timed scenario of framing Oswald with a rifle that ISN'T fired, when the *simplest* way of framing Oswald is to USE that same rifle. It's so amazing how in every conspiracy scenario that we're supposed to believe in order to justify rejecting Oswald's guilt, we get asked to believe the most absurd kind of complicated scenarios that no rational mind would *ever* conceive. But that again, gets back to why buffdom is a cottage industry for just asking questions and believing they are exempt from providing answers.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

As Jack said, the fingerprints were photographed before Oswald was dead. In fact, if you had looked at the link I provided you would see they were taken at dusk on the day of the assassination. Besides, if they were planted there by any means, you still have to explain why they "planted" fingerprints that would not ID Oswald for 30 more years using technology that didn't exist yet!! In addition, the link also shows the print cards taken at the morgue were positively matched with Oswald's Marine prints. Another red herring.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

And Phil, it is explained in the link that corpses are often fingerprinted. They even have special inkless fingerprint paper for the job, so the coroner/undertaker does not have to deal with ink on the fingers. Read the link, gentlemen. It will dispel much of what you are questioning here, and will save Jack and I some typing.

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jack P

The proof of it being a "physical impossibility" is the fact that these particular prints we are talking about are the ones on the rifle on NOVEMBER 22, 1963. These are prints you see on the rifle in a photo taken on NOVEMBER 22, 1963 which is before Oswald died.

WHAT??? I don't follow your logic Jack..or perhaps you aren't following mine. How are the photos you are alluding to "proof" that fingerprints from a dead Oswald's hand could not have possibly been put on the rifle? And why was Oswald fingerprinted after he was dead?

 

[Jack P]

Um, because the photographs are of the rifle on the day it was found in the location it was found. This is the point you don't seem to grasp. The prints we are talking about that Scalice re-examined are prints that you can see on the rifle on the day the rifle was found. This is why these photos are in a book called "JFK-FIRST DAY EVIDENCE" meaning it is a look at Oswald's prints on that rifle, two *days* before he is shot. El comprende?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Read the link Phil! If you do, you will learn the following: The prints were identified by analyzing original photos taken of the rifle after fingerprint powder was applied. Said photos were taken on the day of the shooting, while Oswald was alive. Fingerprinting a corpse is standard procedure in a murder investigation, there is even special fingerprint paper especially for this purpose. The chain of custody of the photos and print cards used is airtight. Oswald's (and only Oswald's) prints are on the trigger assembly of that rifle. They were not planted, unless the planters used amnesia gas on Oswald, and . . . Oh yeah . . . didn't intend them to be found for 30 years!

 

[phil*]

Since certain members of the "lone nut" community constantly and derisively refer to conspiracy theorists as "buffs" or "buffdom"..I think that it's only fair to give the "lone nut" theorists a handle that THEY can be proud of. Hmmm..how about.."collective nuts"..that sounds about right.


So..if I'm right..the collective nuts are saying that Oswald left 3 cartridge shells lying at his feet after the shooting..which he could have very easily scooped up and disposed of prior to leaving the Depository.. and that he didn't bother to use gloves when he was shooting at the President..thereby leaving his fingerprints on the rifle which could be tied to him. Hmmm..this sounds very much like an individual who WANTED to be caught...but wait..Oswald DENIED having anything to do with the assassination. What a quandary! But the collective nuts have it all figured out by saying that Oswald was a sociopath, a lunatic who basically was mentally unbalanced..a conclusion which can only be substantiated empirically at the very best.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

How did they plant those fingerprints, Phil? And if they planted them, why would they plant fingerprints that wouldn't be found until 1993, using technology that didn't exist at the time? Answer the questions before you resort to your usual tactic of derision and scorn. Also, I can point to hundreds of shootings where the killer didn't wear gloves and left shell casings. Nothing special about that. Also nothing special about denying the crime. Most criminals are stupid, and no one ever nominated LHO to Mensa.

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jack P

Um, because the photographs are of the rifle on the day it was found in the location it was found. This is the point you don't seem to grasp. The prints we are talking about that Scalice re-examined are prints that you can see on the rifle on the day the rifle was found. This is why these photos are in a book called "JFK-FIRST DAY EVIDENCE" meaning it is a look at Oswald's prints on that rifle, two *days* before he is shot. El comprende?

Jack..let me put it to you this way..why the NEED to fingerprint Oswald after he was dead? Now, notice I'm refering to ONLY Oswald so please don't bring up another case. Comprenez vous?

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

How did they plant those fingerprints, Phil? And if they planted them, why would they plant fingerprints that wouldn't be found until 1993, using technology that didn't exist at the time? Answer the questions before you resort to your usual tactic of derision and scorn.

Fingerprints can be planted in any number of ways. Why the need to re-fingerprint Oswald? Did the first set of fingerprints not come out correctly?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Since you refuse to read it, I'll post it here, Phil (from my earlier link):

As stated earlier, Rusty has an original fingerprint card that he and J. B. Hicks made of Oswald following his murder while his body lay in the morgue at Parkland Hospital Sunday night. At that time, the Dallas Police Department used a small fingerprint card which was manufactured by the Faurot Company of New York. To use the card, an invisible chemical was placed on the victim's fingers, and the card was then rolled over them. The paper that the card was made from then reacted to the chemical from the finger, producing a print on the card. This type of card was typically used by detectives on deceased individuals in order to avoid leaving ink stains on a body already prepared for burial. The reason Rusty and J. B. Hicks took a photograph and fingerprinted Oswald in the morgue was actually a routine assignment for the Crime Lab. Rusty told me, "In fingerprinting, normally a lot of times we would have to go to a mortuary where a body had already been prepared for burial, and if we didn't get to it beforehand, we had to go to the mortuary and roll a set of prints. We did roll some prints while Oswald was in the morgue. He hadn't been prepared for burial."

Emphasis mine.