Tippit Shooting, 1:15

[Jack Trojan]

He might have held the shells by the rim. Even if he didn't, shells don't have much surface area for a print. Neither does a trigger. Police dust such small areas in the off-chance there might be a print. It's possible but unlikely.

Also fingers aren't always casting off prints; the pores could be clean is they touch something absorbent and it will be awhile before sweat is present again.

Possibly, but not probably, IMO. LHO had to take the ammo out of the box and insert the bullets into the gun which surely would have left at least 1 print on 1 of the shells. The problem here is that there is no way to link hulls with the slugs.

I also don't get why there were no prints on the handgun. Shouldn't LHO's lack of prints in the SN on the MC and the handgun give you pause? Legally, isn't that too few prints to implicate the shooter and doesn't it make LHO the patsy instead?

[Bill Chapman]

Good grief! Loading and unloading a Smith&Wesson .38 for Dummies-----

 

Oswald used this gun?

[Charles Collins]

Good grief! Loading and unloading a Smith&Wesson .38 for Dummies-----

This video doesn’t address the 11/22/63 situation that LHO had. It doesn’t include spent shells, which expand and are held in place by friction. And it especially doesn’t include the mismatched .38 special ammunition spent shells (for the re-chambered gun). Which was testified, by an expert, as being “very difficult” to eject by that method.

[Richard Smith]

How does removing them ONE AT A TIME (even in all caps) equate to it meaning that it was easy?

Well it sure as hell wasn't difficult ....Benavides said nothing about the killer struggling to remove a spent shell.....And if you'd extract your head perhaps you could see that Cunningham said that ALL THE SHELLS ARE REMOVED AT ONCE from the S&W revolver.   ...And Cunningham said that they are very difficult to remove.

Mr. EISENBERG. I would like the record to show that when Mr. Cunningham tipped the revolver, the unfired bullet tipped out, but the five expended shells remained in.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, would you show how you would eject the five expended shells?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. yes. These are very difficult, by the way, to extract, due to the fact that the chamber has been rechambered. And as you can see, you get on your cartridge cases a little ballooning with these smaller diameter cases in the .38 Special.

You are running around in circles.  Here is what you claimed:   "Because the witnesses, Starting with Dom Benavides DESCRIBE the ease with which the killer removes the spent shells ONE AT A TIME."

Not saying anything about whether it appeared difficult to remove the shells doesn't mean that Benavides DESCRIBED Oswald "easily" removing the shells as you have falsely claimed.  It just means that Benavides made no observation whatsoever on that point.  All he said was that he saw Oswald remove and throw them after murdering Tippit.   Who again?  Oswald.     

[John Iacoletti]

All he said was that he saw Oswald remove and throw them after murdering Tippit.   Who again?  Oswald.   

Mr. BENAVIDES - Later on that evening, about 4 o'clock, there was two officers came by and asked for me, Mr. Callaway asked me---I had told them that I had seen the officer, and the reporters were there and I was trying to hide from the reporters because they will just bother you all the time.
Then I found out that they thought this was the guy that killed the President. At the time I didn't know the President was dead or he had been shot.
I was just trying to hide from the reporters and everything, and these two officers came around and asked me if I'd seen him, and I told him yes, and told them what I had seen, and they asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. At this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have.
Mr. BELIN - Did he ever take you to the police station and ask you if you could identify him?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; they didn't.

[Bill Chapman]

You know what else is simple?

Just because a witness was coerced at an unfair lineup to identify Oswald, that does not mean that s/he actually saw Oswald.

Was he/she also 'coerced' to almost faint?

[John Iacoletti]

Was he/she also 'coerced' to almost faint?

Thanks for your always relevant input.

[Jerry Organ]

Possibly, but not probably, IMO. LHO had to take the ammo out of the box and insert the bullets into the gun which surely would have left at least 1 print on 1 of the shells.

That's a probability argument. Touching a small area like the trigger or a shell probably would leave a smudged print, if any. The finger leaving off the trigger would "wipe" any print there, as would pushing a shell forward between fingers into a revolver. There's also the factor that fingers don't constantly and consistently cast off prints anyway. Sometimes the fingers are dry due to touching something absorbent or purposely wiping or washing them.

Police seldom see latent fingerprints on a spent shell due to heat vaporizing the oils. We went over on the Forum a while ago the new technique that would be able to detect "micro-etched fingerprints", prints that aren't visible but have left a thin residual mark due to heat. But some studies intentionally placed strong fingerprints on the hulls before firing, which improved the detection results. Still on the off-chance there might be some prints on the hulls in the JFK case, then they'll hopefully be tested when the science is truly ready.

The problem here is that there is no way to link hulls with the slugs.

I also don't get why there were no prints on the handgun. Shouldn't LHO's lack of prints in the SN on the MC and the handgun give you pause?

Some materials resist printing. I think the rifle's wood stock was like that, in that it was absorbent. The triggerguard housing was smooth metal, almost perfect for a print to be deposited. Without getting into the arguments for-and-against, some believe Oswald's prints were photographed on the housing.

Legally, isn't that too few prints to implicate the shooter and doesn't it make LHO the patsy instead?

Fingerprint evidence is always highlighted on TV shows but real-life court cases usually don't have much, if any, in the way of fingerprint evidence. Often the weapon is wiped down or the prints are smudged or the surface of the weapon isn't receptive to prints. Or the killer wore gloves. The Golden State Killer apparently left no prints, only one trace of DNA.