Oswald fingerprints on the live shell?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

So that explains why Oswald didn't leave a single print on the stock, barrel, trigger, clip, ammo and scope of the MC after he disassembled then reassembled it in the TSBD. Is that what those latent fingerprint examiners are suggesting or are you?

Again, what do the forensics experts who study these matters say about finding prints on firearms? I don't know anything about the matter; certainly not about their ability to recover them from firearms in 1963.

Your disagreement is with forensic science and facts and not me. As I said, this is real life and not the movies or television - CSI Dallas doesn't exist. I've said nothing about the issue because I have no knowledge on it. They do. And those experts I've read say it is very difficult to recover prints from firearms. So isn't that the likely explanation?

Can you cite forensic experts who say that there should have been numerous identifiable prints of Oswald on the rifle? It's your claim; you need to support it.

Question: How many prints of Oswald are needed to show he handled the rifle? Ten? Twelve? Isn't one enough?

Why didn't all of these powerful groups that you think pulled off this coup place more of his prints on the rifle? I assume you think they planted them, right? Because he never owned that rifle and the only reason any did appear is because they planted them? Correct?

[Bill Chapman]

What do criminologists and forensic scientists say about finding identifiable prints on weapons? Or in general at crime scenes? . Let's limit it to firearms since that's the issue you raised. Not only today but fifty plus years ago? This is not the movies; this is real life.

So, what do the experts say? Have you researched the issue? Yes, this is a challenge because I've read what they say. And you won't like it.

For example, from a 1997 article published in "The Journal of Forensic Identification":
"Latent fingerprint examiners generally know that even when cutting edge technology such as cyanoacrylate fuming and laser/forensic light source examination are utilized, successful development of latent prints on firearms is difficult to achieve. In reality, very few identifiable latent prints are found on firearms, a fact that has been discussed in both the literature and the judicial system."

And that's not an anecdote.

Right on.

There's about a 5-10% chance that any usuable fingerprints will be found on the firearms in any given crime, even today, let alone 1963.

[John Iacoletti]

I filmed him lifting prints from the rifle. He lifted them off with scotch tape and placed them on little white cards.

If this is true, then what happened to the other "little white cards"?  And how do you know that CE 637 was one of them?

The only print of a lift is the so called "palm print" ( CE 634) and it was listed on the evidence list of the evidence that was turned over to the FBI at midnight.

Except the evidence list in question is undated.  And Vince Drain (who received the evidence) knew nothing about the magic palmprint.  And again, the magic palmprint is CE 637, not CE 634.

[John Iacoletti]

What do criminologists and forensic scientists say about finding identifiable prints on weapons? Or in general at crime scenes? . Let's limit it to firearms since that's the issue you raised. Not only today but fifty plus years ago? This is not the movies; this is real life.

So, what do the experts say? Have you researched the issue? Yes, this is a challenge because I've read what they say. And you won't like it.

For example, from a 1997 article published in "The Journal of Forensic Identification":
"Latent fingerprint examiners generally know that even when cutting edge technology such as cyanoacrylate fuming and laser/forensic light source examination are utilized, successful development of latent prints on firearms is difficult to achieve. In reality, very few identifiable latent prints are found on firearms, a fact that has been discussed in both the literature and the judicial system."

And that's not an anecdote.

Good thing they were able to beat the odds and "find" Oswald's partials on the long bag and supposedly on the rifle just when they needed to, huh?

[John Iacoletti]

Yes I have.....But if you are implying that Tom Alyea was a nefarious part of the conspiracy or the cover up, I certainly would disagree.    Alyea seems to be a bit confused about the case....He definitely has exhibited his lack of solid reasoning and commonsense.

Except for that bit about lifting prints and putting them on cards.  That you can take to the bank because Walt says so.

[Walt Cakebread]

If this is true, then what happened to the other "little white cards"?  And how do you know that CE 637 was one of them?

Except the evidence list in question is undated.  And Vince Drain (who received the evidence) knew nothing about the magic palmprint.  And again, the magic palmprint is CE 637, not CE 634.

Vince Drain???.....  Are you kidding....   Or are you actually this naive?

And again, the magic palmprint is CE 637, not CE 634.

Have you not noticed that nearly all of the evidence is identified by two different CE numbers.... All the better to confuse you my dear...

[Walt Cakebread]

If this is true, then what happened to the other "little white cards"?  And how do you know that CE 637 was one of them?

Except the evidence list in question is undated.  And Vince Drain (who received the evidence) knew nothing about the magic palmprint.  And again, the magic palmprint is CE 637, not CE 634.

If this is true, then what happened to the other "little white cards"?  And how do you know that CE 637 was one of them?

If you don't believe Tom Alyea, then you must believe he invented the account.   So you believe Alyea fabricated the tale out of thin air?   Do you think that's reasonable? ....and for what reason would Alyea create such a lie?

We know for a fact that there is at least one little white card that fits the description presented by Mr Alyea. 

[John Iacoletti]

Vince Drain???.....  Are you kidding....   Or are you actually this naive?

Well, let's see.  Does Vince Drain have 84 fabrications?

And again, the magic palmprint is CE 637, not CE 634.

Have you not noticed that nearly all of the evidence is identified by two different CE numbers.... All the better to confuse you my dear...

Have you actually looked at CE 634?  It has ZERO to do with the magic palmprint.