Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence

[Bill Chapman]

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.

[Richard Smith]

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.

[Jack Trojan]

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

According to whom, you?

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.

[Jack Trojan]

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.

[Richard Smith]

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. 

[Pat Speer]

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.

[Bill Chapman]

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.

[Bill Chapman]

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