It's a loaded question. Of what relevance is the year that the interview took place if it doesn't contradict something he said earlier? How does that equate to "we are going to go by what he said that year and forward"?
Yeah, because fingerprint powder turns flimsy and crinkly paper into thick wrapping paper.
Randle did not describe the bag she saw Oswald carrying as 'flimsy and crinkly'
I'm not playing word games at all. I said that Frazier stated that it was possible that it was the same case. That's all I said. There is no untruth in that.
Perhaps she just wasn't close enough to see.
Are you now switching ponies and claiming the investigators competent?I'm not switching anything and I have come across the claim about Truly before. It was a pointless comment back then and still is today. Truly's objections would have been worthless if the investigators wanted to fingerprint everybody in the building.
'If they wanted'Are you sure people couldn't claim their right to privacy and demand to be shown 'just cause'
Sure, they could claim that.... But that's another matter and has nothing to do with Truly's objections.