Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence

[Martin Weidmann]

You lost me at the last line. And it seems to me that conspiracy-mongers are the ones marginalized. Further to that, I suspect that conspiracists in general feel somewhat powerless and marginalized in their lives.

Any puzzlement about the assassination is your burden. Any 'court-of-law' feel here comes from Weidmann + Iacoletti Roving Barristers, Inc.

Any 'court-of-law' feel here comes from Weidmann + Iacoletti Roving Barristers, Inc.

I've wondered for some time now why LNs don't like questions and even less like answering them. It seems you've just told me why?

[Bill Brown]

You offered your opinion on what LHO did, but you WEREN'T there and have NO evidence to support your opinion, thus, it is an ASSUMPTION by you.

You have NO case to rest.

You offered your opinion on what LHO did...

No I didn't.

Again, you're just too stupid to understand and I'm not going to explain it to you.

[Rob Caprio]

No I didn't.

Again, you're just too stupid to understand and I'm not going to explain it to you.

Sure. Run Brown, run. Your point is worthless anyway.

[Bill Chapman]

Any 'court-of-law' feel here comes from Weidmann + Iacoletti Roving Barristers, Inc.

I've wondered for some time now why LNs don't like questions and even less like answering them. It seems you've just told me why?

Wonder no longer: Reasonable people everywhere think conspiracy-mongers silly and worthy only of mockery.... barrister.

And thanks for confirming my suggestion that you treat this forum as a courtroom rather than as a discussion forum

[Bill Chapman]

I don't know where you reside, but in the United States it is not required to name a suspect to show your innocence. LHO, or anyone else, doesn't have to do this.

Conversely,  the failure to show who was involved in the conspiracy does NOT make LHO guilty. Only the evidence can do that and that shows a conspiracy took place in the assassination of JFK.

Show us where I said Oswald was anything more than the prime suspect.

And point out someone, other than the shooter, who knew there was some heavy xxxx about to go down in Dealey Plaza that day. Without that, you have NO conspiracy.


Again, again, and yet again... did you figure out why the investigators ran the paraffin tests on Oswald, even knowing them inadmissible as evidence?

[Martin Weidmann]

Wonder no longer: Reasonable people everywhere think conspiracy-mongers silly and worthy only of mockery.... barrister.

And thanks for confirming my suggestion that you treat this forum as a courtroom rather than as a discussion forum

Reasonable people everywhere think conspiracy-mongers silly and worthy only of mockery

I don't believe this for a second. You're going to have to provide some proof for this, if you don't want this statement to be considered to be highly unreasonable.

And thanks for confirming my suggestion that you treat this forum as a courtroom rather than as a discussion forum

Where did I confirm that? I can't help it what your "court-of-law feel" is....

[Rob Caprio]

Show us where I said Oswald was anything more than the prime suspect.

And point out someone, other than the shooter, who knew there was some heavy xxxx about to go down in Dealey Plaza that day. Without that, you have NO conspiracy.


Again, again, and yet again... did you figure out why the investigators ran the paraffin tests on Oswald, even knowing them inadmissible as evidence?

That isn't how you phrase it. No one else needs to be named to show that LHO is innocent of the shootings.

Numerous people had advanced knowledge, and my series showed that, but you would just mock them anyway.

[Mitch Todd]

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

"The fingerprint evidence against Oswald is a joke. But it is more than that, it is evidence of conspiracy. In all 3 cases where Oswald's prints showed up, they were sorely lacking in frequency considering how much he had supposedly handled those items. The FBI, SS and Dallas Police really dropped the ball on their sheep-dipping of Oswald. They got him to pose for pics in his backyard with the murder weapons but they didn't sight in his scope or get more of his prints on the rifle, the bag and the boxes."

According to whom, you?

According to anyone who's honest with themselves.

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.

So now the truth finally comes out! You didn't really care about what the experts would say, only if someone else would quote them for you. At best, that's lazy. More likely, you don't actually care about anything the experts would say; you just want to declare yourself the  winner of your own internet p1$51n6 match, all the while remaining blissfully ignorant of the subject at hand. To bend Dean Wormer around a bit, blind, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.

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.

"But when push comes to shove, you LNers are all about discrediting and obfuscation, cuz that's all you got."

....so says guy who's loudly trying to discredit the fingerprint evidence. You don't even understand that you are doing exactly what you hate to see others do, and doing it simultaneously as you excoriate others for it. I wouldn't have imagined that you could behave so stupidly, but there it is in black and white. Take a bow, kid, that was quite an achievement!

In the end, it's up to you to show that the fingerprint results are truly anomalous. If you can't, then that's your problem and not ours. More importantly, it's your burden. Don't be a Caprio and demand that others disprove the random assertions that you spew.