The following warnings occurred: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warning [2] A non-numeric value encountered - Line: 499 - File: inc/functions.php PHP 7.4.33 (Linux)
|
Fingerprints on Rifles... - Printable Version +- Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com) +-- Forum: Main JFK Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-Main-JFK-Forums) +--- Forum: JFK Conspiracy Main Forum (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-JFK-Conspiracy-Main-Forum) +--- Thread: Fingerprints on Rifles... (/Thread-Fingerprints-on-Rifles) |
Fingerprints on Rifles... - Ben Holmes - 07-10-2016 From Michael Griffith's excellent essay on "Faulty Evidence" The Dallas police claimed they found some partial fingerprints on the Carcano's magazine housing (a part of the trigger guard). The FBI studied these prints the day after the assassination and determined that they were worthless for identification purposes. However, in recent years two independent fingerprint experts examined photographs of the prints and concluded they were Oswald's. What is odd about these prints is that they were located on a part of the rifle that would NOT have been handled while it was being fired. Some researchers are understandably skeptical of the recent identification of the partial prints as Oswald's. But, if the prints are his, then I would suggest they might have been made as a result of Oswald being manipulated into handling the rifle shortly before the shooting, or even after he was taken into custody. Are the partial prints Oswald's? Fingerprint experts Jerry Powdrill and Vincent J. Scalice examined photos of the prints in 1993 and concluded they were Oswald's. Many conspiracy theorists are skeptical of this identification and point out that the prints were studied carefully in 1963 by the FBI's Sebastian Latona, a highly skilled and experienced fingerprint expert, and found to be worthless. WC defenders reply that Latona didn't have access to the same photos of the prints that Powdrill and Scalice were able to use. However, not only was Latona able to study the original prints themselves, but he had additional pictures taken of them for examination purposes. Latona's WC testimony leads many researchers to doubt the validity of Powdrill's and Scalice's identification. Here is what Latona said about his analysis of the prints: Quote:Mr. LATONA. I could see faintly ridge formations there. However, examination disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value. Now, I did not stop there. Lone-gunman theorists assert that the Dallas police found Oswald's palm print on the barrel of the alleged murder weapon. However, the palm print had no chain of evidence, and the Dallas police did not tell the FBI about the print until AFTER Oswald was dead (he was shot by Jack Ruby on November 24). Until late in the evening of the 24th, journalists assigned to the Dallas police station were reporting that, according to their police sources, Oswald's prints had NOT been found on the rifle (Lifton 356 n). Dallas police officials said the same thing during public interviews, i.e., that Oswald's prints had NOT been found on the weapon. When the FBI's Latona examined the Carcano on November 23, he did not find Oswald's prints on the weapon. Moreover, Latona said the rifle's barrel did NOT look as though it had even been processed for prints. There is evidence that suggests the palm print was obtained from Oswald's dead body at the morgue, or later at the funeral home (Lifton 354-356 n; cf. Meagher 120-127). So suspicious was the palm print that even the WC privately had doubts about the manner in which it was obtained (Garrison 113; Marrs 445; cf. Lane 153-158). One reason to doubt the origin of the partial fingerprint and palm print is that it is highly unusual for so many prints to be found on a weapon. In fact, it's unusual just to find partial prints on a gun. It's even more unusual to find partial prints AND a palm print. In the 1973 trial of H. Rap Brown, a police expert with 18 years experience with the New York Police Crime Lab, Sgt. William Torpey, testified that during his career he had examined over "500 firearms for fingerprints and had found only one identifiable print" (O'Hara 778). Torpey continued, Even when fingerprints are found on a firearm, they are almost always too smudged to be useful. One reason is that these weapons are likely to be slightly oily, especially if well kept. Another is that the person using the weapon holds it so tightly that the prints are smeared. And if the weapon is fired, the jolt smears any prints that might otherwise have been useful. (O'Hara 779) RE: Fingerprints on Rifles... - DanielKallid - 10-13-2018 Your post on fingerprints on riflesĀ is really good. I love your essay. You seems professional essay writer. Are you working in professional resume builder service like that. Because i have never read such excellent written forum post like yours before. I am so glad, i have found your post by mistake. But now i am saving your website link in my notepad, so that in future i can visit here again. RE: Fingerprints on Rifles... - Sharleen7 - 10-26-2018 When the president was shot lately night so there was 3 peoples involved in that which rifles though I also seesĀ the video on youtube so when I was searching for it so found that youtube banning the videos of casino and gambling which were the most viewed |