[fobrien1]

(03-07-2017, 04:23 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  (37) Oswald's prints were found on boxes that comprised the sniper's nest.

They would be *EXPECTED* to be there... he worked there. What should *NOT* be there are prints from an *UNKNOWN* person who didn't work there - and were never identified. Far from being evidence against Oswald, the fingerprint evidence instead shows that leads weren't followed up by the DPD & FBI. And although Bugliosi had nothing to do with it – this particular topic – the relative paucity of fingerprints on these boxes, led one Warren Commission Believer (Patrick Collins) to hypothesize that Oswald was moving the boxes with his forearms.

Yes, you read that right! His forearms. It truly takes a Believer to come up with these explanations...


hi ben yes its very reasonable to state that his prints had every right to be there on any number of boxes really , simply because he worked not only in that building but also on that floor . and he worked on the upper floors that morning .

oswald it should be noted that only 3 prints were found on two boxes . on print on one and two on the other , if memory serves a finger print on one and a finger and palm on the other . this to me is not what i would expect of boxes handled and indeed moved into the so called snipers nest . one should surely expect prints from both hands on both boxes .

in addition to that the finger print expert testified that he coud not state a definite time that these prints were left , that in his opinion they could have been just hours old or indeed upwards of 3 days old .

---

(03-21-2017, 08:13 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  No depository employees other than Oswald left identifiable prints on the sniper's nest boxes even though none of them wore gloves. Roy Truly testified that the two, small, lightweight cartons marked "Rolling Readers" found at the sixth floor window were ordinarily stored "40 feet away or so". William Shelley, the Depository foreman, testified that the Rolling Readers cartons were normally stored "at least halfway across the building from the corner window.

When Shelley was asked if it would have been unusual for the two Rolling Readers cartons to be out of the stack and over by the window he replied that it would have been very unusual because they were different size cartons from any other boxes on that floor. They were smaller boxes. He stated that the fact that they were even over by the window suggests that they were moved by someone familiar with the different size cartons available on the sixth floor but also knew where to find them - in other words a Depository Employee. Maybe an employee whose prints were found in the sniper's nest. Interesting that Mr. Holmes left these pesky details out.

" He stated that the fact that they were even over by the window suggests that they were moved by someone familiar with the different size cartons available on the sixth floor but also knew where to find them - in other words a Depository Employee. Maybe an employee whose prints were found in the sniper's nest. Interesting that Mr. Holmes left these pesky details out " hollywood

someone familiiar with the cartons and the building ? wouldnt the floor laying staff who were laying plywood flooring be so familair ? .

---

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Shelley's comment is anything but silly. Why would gunmen other than Oswald walk clear across the sixth floor to get boxes for the concealed sniper's nest when there was a myriad of available boxes much closer to the window? The smaller Rolling Readers boxes were ideal for the purposes they were used for - clear indication that an individual with intimate knowledge of how the inventory on the sixth floor was laid out designed and constructed the sniper's nest. Only one employee's "identifiable" prints were found on the boxes and this one employee was identified by an eyewitness as the shooter in the window firing his third shot. This one employee was interrogated and told one provable lie after another on the evening this one employee also fled the scene at the time of the shooting. Common sense is not common among conspracy believers.

" Common sense is not common among conspracy believers " hollywood

is this the sort of comment we should expect from you in all aspects of this case ? . i mean i am quite familliar with the LN (lonenut ) mentality and i know that often when an LN is faced with some thing uncomfortable or something they cant refute that they then usually go down the route of attacking and labeling . so should we expect to see a lot CONSPIRACY NUT comments from you and KOOKS comments ? etc etc  i mean as oppossed to actually adressing points raised and claims made ? , but then mr bugliosi was quite partial to such behavior himself . the point is what you may think about someone is unimportant , what you can prove is paramount . that is to say you can dislike me all you want , call me names all you wish but in doing so you wont be providing proof that is proving me wrong .

---

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Shelley's comment is anything but silly. Why would gunmen other than Oswald walk clear across the sixth floor to get boxes for the concealed sniper's nest when there was a myriad of available boxes much closer to the window? The smaller Rolling Readers boxes were ideal for the purposes they were used for - clear indication that an individual with intimate knowledge of how the inventory on the sixth floor was laid out designed and constructed the sniper's nest. Only one employee's "identifiable" prints were found on the boxes and this one employee was identified by an eyewitness as the shooter in the window firing his third shot. This one employee was interrogated and told one provable lie after another on the evening this one employee also fled the scene at the time of the shooting. Common sense is not common among conspracy believers.

"one employee was identified by an eyewitness as the shooter in the window firing his third shot" hollywood

howard brennan as ben pointed out did not pick oswald from a line up . only when oswald was dead did he say it was him .

brennan gave a height and weight description of the man he saw based on only seeing the man from the waist up .
brennan described the man as wearing khaki clothing that oswald was not wearing .
brennan stated that he attended a particular line up , no other witnesses ever saw mr brennan there .
a list exists of everyone who was at or participated in all the line ups , brennans name appears nowhere on this list .
brennan stated that he attended the line up with will fritz , but fritz denied this saying I DOUBT IT .

the warren commission declined to rely upon brennans later identification of oswald as the man in the window , stating only that HE SAW SOMEONE who he later believed was oswald .

---

(03-23-2017, 01:15 AM)Hollywood Wrote:  

(03-23-2017, 01:07 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Shelley's comment is anything but silly. Why would gunmen other than Oswald walk clear across the sixth floor to get boxes for the concealed sniper's nest when there was a myriad of available boxes much closer to the window?

Why would Oswald?

This is merely a speculation game. I've already pointed out just how easy it is to spot the smaller boxes - so one doesn't have to be an employee to know where they are.

Nor can you show WHERE THOSE BOXES CAME FROM.

Who can say but that they were actually the closest to the Sniper's Nest when it was constructed?
 

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  The smaller Rolling Readers boxes were ideal for the purposes they were used for - clear indication that an individual with intimate knowledge of how the inventory on the sixth floor was laid out designed and constructed the sniper's nest.

Simply not true.

ANYONE could walk into the sixth floor, and determine for themselves what size boxes they wanted to move. It didn't require any specialized knowledge... merely eyes.
 

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Only one employee's "identifiable" prints were found on the boxes...

You still refuse to acknowledge that employee prints HAD TO HAVE BEEN ON ALL THE BOXES.

It would have been strange NOT to find prints.

What WAS strange, and still unexplained by anyone, is the prints THAT COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED AS BELONGING TO ANY TSBD EMPLOYEE. (or indeed, anyone with legitimate reason to be in the TSBD)

This supports the idea that the TSBD was merely used by strangers, who then simply walked down the stairs (as testified by one cop...)
 

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  ...and this one employee was identified by an eyewitness as the shooter in the window firing his third shot.

Nope... not true. Howard Brennan REFUSED to identify Oswald as the shooter. Only months later, and subject to federal intimidation, did Brennan change his tune.

Indeed, this pervasive federal intimidation that went on has not only never been explained by any believers, but also NOT PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGED AS FACT.

And that fact speaks volumes...

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  This one employee was interrogated and told one provable lie after another

Then by all means... prove it.

But, as is often the case when a believer is asked to support his naked assertion with citations to the evidence, it turns out to be nothing at all...
 

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  ... on the evening this one employee also fled the scene at the time of the shooting.

Tut tut tut... unless you can document this claim, I'll have to label this a lie.

There's not only a long list of employees that weren't in the TSBD that afternoon, by no stretch of the imagination can Oswald be said to have "fled."

You'll produce no citations that support that, I predict.
 

(03-22-2017, 06:05 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Common sense is not common among conspracy believers.

More provably, honesty is not common among believers. And I CAN document that.

---

Bugliosi's #37 still remains unrefuted - Oswald's prints WERE found on the boxes in the sixth floor sniper's nest.

" Bugliosi's #37 still remains unrefuted - Oswald's prints WERE found on the boxes in the sixth floor sniper's nest. " hollywood

i havent seen ben say that oswalds prints were not on 2 boxes , they in fact were , so if your claim is that oswalds prints were on the boxes as bugliosi claimed then yes that remains unrefuted . but then ben hasnt tried to refute it , nor am i for that matter . if your claim is that because this is not refuted that it PROVES oswald left those prints at 12.30 well then i have to inform you that your logic is wrong . the prints as the finger print expert stated in testimony could have been hours old or as much as 3 days old . meaning oswald could have handled the boxes that morning , that afternoon or as early as wednesday . so the 3 prints on two boxes dont prove guilt , but nor do they exonerate .

---

(03-23-2017, 02:31 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  At some point, critical mass is reached:  fingerprints on the boxes alone can be reasonably questioned - but when added to shirt fibers from Oswald's shirt on the murder weapon, his fingerprints on the weapon, the murder weapon itself being traced to Oswald himself, an eyewitness who watched him fire the third shot, the paper bag with fibers which closely matched the blanket in the Paine garage - it then becomes illogical to dismiss it all as planted or corrupted - we have reached critical mass. Bugliosi's #37 has STILL not been refuted - Oswald's prints WERE found on the boxes in the window - inserting comments about other employees handling those boxes just deflects attention from the fact that no refutation has been effectively offered.

and talking about / throwing in other evidence to try and get around the fact that the prints dont help you prove oswalds guilt is equallly an attempt to deflect attention .

the fact is the 3 prints neither prove guilt nor exonerate , if you wish to say that they could be seen by a jury as circumstantial that would be acceptable .

you mentioned a witness BREANNAN above , he stated that the man he saw wore khaki colored clothing . tell me did he mention seeing a dark brown shirt ? , the answer is NO . do you think that is a problem at all ?.

regarding the shirt fibers , the fbi fiber tests used back then have since been discredited . that aside the best that the fiber expert in testimony could offer was that the fibers he found and the fibers from oswalds shirt were consistent . NOT PROVEN TO HAVE COME FROM OSWALDS SHIRT just consistent with . lets add in the fact that the expert did not find one color fiber known to exist in oswalds shirt .

the same applies to the fibers you mention from the bag that you say "closely matched the blanket in the Paine garage" .

when the fbi processed the rifle they only found a few prints near the left side of the trigger guard . they said they were useless for identification purposes . NO PALM PRINT or any sign of one was ever found . which is very strange considering that day of the dallas police said that the palm print was in the stock area of the rifle HALF EXPOSED AND HALF COVERED . meaning it can only have been left there when the rifle was broken down . he said he lifted the exposed part but that he could still see the print was still there , so its mightly funny that he then gives the fbi the rifle , they thoroughly process it and no palm print was found . ive seen LNs argue that THE PRINT WAS ACCIDENTALLY ERASED BY THE FBI AGENTS ENROUTE TO THE FBI BUILDING . that is to say THE EXPOSED PART , ok lets say the fbi are that incompetent and they did accidentally erase that part of the print WHY THEN WASNT THE COVERED PART OF THE PRINT FOUND ?. after all the rifle had to be taken apart to access it and day didnt do that , so its beyond logic to assert that that part of the print should have been there abd found by the fbi . but it wasnt , they found nothing .

but lets for a minute say OK THE PRINT WAS INDEED THERE AND WAS INDEED OSWALDS . does that print prove that the rifle was in oswalds hands at 12,30 that tragic day ? . ABSOLUTELY NOT . day said the print he saw was old and dry making it weeks or months old . so at best all it would prove is that oswald handled the rifle when broken down at some point .

we do need to go back to the fibers but in another post .