You begin by claiming that the discovery of Oswald's prints on the SN boxes is not incriminatory because he "worked there." It can be expected for that reason that his prints might be found on the boxes. When it is pointed out that his were the ONLY TSBD employee's prints identified on the boxes, you ramble about unidentified prints (plural) as though multiple other TSBD employees might have left prints on these same boxes because they "worked there." Of course, the TSBD employees who worked on the 6th floor were printed and their prints were not matched to any prints on these boxes. In fact, when the prints of the DPD and FBi agent who touched the boxes are eliminated, the number drops to a single print.
Poor Oswald. Of all the TSBD employees who worked on that floor, he just happens to be the only one who leaves identifiable prints on the SN boxes and bag. No one can believe that this is just the result of terrible luck. And even though you stupidly make that claim despite all logic, you also question the word of the DPD and suggesting that they fabricated evidence. You don't even see the logical inconsistency of arguing that this evidence is fabricated to frame Oswald for the crime (e.g. his print on the rifle) with your equally stupid and baseless claim that this evidence doesn't link Oswald to the crime. It is very amusing. In your contrarian world, the DPD lies to fabricate evidence in the assassination of the president, risking ruined careers and prison, but the evidence that they go to such risk to fabricate doesn't prove Oswald's involvement in the crime in your opinion! The entire and sole purpose of the fabrication. HA HA HA. Round and round down the rabbit hole.
You begin by claiming that the discovery of Oswald's prints on the SN boxes is not incriminatory because he "worked there." It can be expected for that reason that his prints might be found on the boxes. Thank you for agreeing with me. His prints on those boxes have indeed no evidentiary value, regardless of how much spin you want to put on it.
Of course, the TSBD employees who worked on the 6th floor were printed and their prints were not matched to any prints on these boxes. In fact, when the prints of the DPD and FBi agent who touched the boxes are eliminated, the number drops to a single print. Even if true, which it isn't, a single unidentifiable print is still one too many. You can not simply ignore that some unidentified person must have left that print!
And it wasn't one print. Latona found unidentifiable prints on at least two boxes;
Mr. EISENBERG. How many identifiable prints did you find on this carton?
Mr. LATONA. There were seven fingerprints and two palmprints developed on Commission Exhibit 653.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, identifiable prints?
Mr. LATONA. Identifiable prints.
Mr. EISENBERG.
Did you identify any of those prints as belonging to a specific person?Mr. LATONA.
I did not.Mr. EISENBERG. May I have 654 marked, Box C, Mr. Chairman? Did you also examine Box C?
Mr. LATONA. Box C, yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have that admitted as 654?
Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit 654.
(Commission Exhibit No. 654 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any latent identifiable prints on 654?
Mr. LATONA. I found two fingerprints and one palmprint.
Mr. EISENBERG.
Did you identify them as belonging to a specific individual?Mr. LATONA.
I did not identify them.Latona also confirmed those unidentifiable prints are not Oswald's;
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you attempt to identify them with Lee Harvey Oswald's known prints?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; and they are not Lee Harvey Oswald's print.
The bottom line is simple; somebody, who was not Oswald left prints on at least two boxes.
Of all the TSBD employees who worked on that floor, he just happens to be the only one who leaves identifiable prints on the SN boxes and bag. Then, who did those unidentified prints belong to? If those prints did not belong to Oswald, another TSBD employee or a law enforcement officer, who else was on the 6th floor and touched those boxes within some 24 hours before the crime?
No one can believe that this is just the result of terrible luck.Indeed! So what was really going on?
And even though you stupidly make that claim despite all logic, you also question the word of the DPD and suggesting that they fabricated evidence. And there is the pathetic "The DPD said so" claim again. Your blind admiration for a police force that was responsible for countless innocent people being convicted for crimes they did not commit.
You don't even see the logical inconsistency of arguing that this evidence is fabricated to frame Oswald for the crime (e.g. his print on the rifle) with your equally stupid and baseless claim that this evidence doesn't link Oswald to the crime. There is no inconsistency. If the evidence was fabricated, it was done so to link Oswald to the crime. That would have been the sole purpose. However, as it would be false evidence it proves nothing at all, or is that to difficult to understand for you?
the DPD lies to fabricate evidence in the assassination of the president,Well, we know for a fact that they did fabricate evidence. You only need to look at the marks made on the jacket by officers who were not in the chain of custody. That's falsifying the chain of custody. We also know for a fact that the DPD claimed the BY photos were found during the second search (with a warrant) of Ruth Paine's house on Saturday afternoon and that this claim was false because an FBI agent showed one of the photos to Michael Paine on Friday evening and Fritz had the photo when he interrogated Oswald on Saturday morning.
