Prints were not found on the cartridge and that is where you expect to find one.
Says who? (other than conspiracy authors you read, I mean). Can you site a actual fingerprint expert who alleges that he would expect to find fingerprints on shells?
Something along the lines of this:
http://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/03/23/fingerprints-from-shell-casings/
Ask any latent print examiner about imaging fingerprints from expended shell casings, and they will tell you it’s most likely futile. Any latent prints that have been deposited on cartridges before, or during, loading into the firearm are “erased” by the firing temperatures experienced by the shell casing. Studies with thermal imaging cameras have shown that the exterior of a brass 9mm cartridge casing will reach approximately 145° F. This is apparently enough to break down or vaporize the skin oils of which a fingerprint is comprised.
The big question is why would LHO be so careful not have fingerprints on something that required touching and not be careful with the stock?
This is an erroneous conclusion you reached from erroneous data in your first two sentences.
Either you have prints all over the rifle or you have a case where it was wiped clean... in this situation, you have neither.
False dichotomy - based again on that erroneous data. We have prints on two metallic parts of the weapon... under the barrel and on the magazine housing. The wooden stock of the weapon was old and worn, and not suitable for leaving (or later finding) prints.
As for the print that the FBI found, below is the testimony of Det. Studebaker.
Mr Ball : Did you lift any prints?
Mr Studebaker : There wasn’t but just smudges on it — is all it was. There was one little ole piece of a print and I’m sure I put a piece of tape on it to preserve it … just a partial print.
Mr Ball : The print of a finger or palm or what?
Mr Studebaker : You couldn’t tell, it was so small.
Lt. Day fingerprinted the bag and found none.... yet, the FBI found a palm print in their Chicago office.
FBI fingerprint expert Sebastion Latona covered all that in his testimony.
Mr. LATONA. The powdering process is merely the utilizing of a fingerprint powder which is applied to any particular surface for purposes of developing any latent prints which my be on such a surface.
Now, we use powder in the FBI only on objects which have a hard, smooth, nonabsorbent finish, such as glass, tile, various types of highly polished metals and the like.
In the FBI we do not use powder on paper, cardboard, unfinished wood, or various types of cloth. The reason is that the materials are absorbent. Accordingly, when any finger which has on it perspiration or sweat comes in contact with an absorbent material, the print starts to become absorbed into the surface. Accordingly,. when an effort is made to develop latent prints by the use of a powder, if the surface is dry, the powder will not adhere.
On the other hand, where the surface is a hard and smooth object, with a nonabsorbent material, the perspiration or sweat which may have some oil in it at that time may remain there as moisture. Accordingly, when the dry powder is brushed across it, the moisture in the print will retain the powder giving an outline of the impression itself.
These powders come in various colors. We utilize a black and a gray. The black powder is used on objects which are white or light to give a resulting contrast of a black print on a white background. We use the gray powder on objects which are black or dark in order to give you a resulting contrast of a white print on a dark or black background.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, how did you proceed to conduct your examination for fingerprints on this object?
Mr. LATONA. Well, an effort was made to remove as much of the powder as possible. And then this was subjected to what is known as the iodine-fuming method, which simply means flowing iodine fumes, which are developed by what is known as an iodine-fuming gun--it is a very simple affair, in which there are a couple of tubes attached to each other, having in one of them iodine crystals. And by simply blowing through one end, you get iodine fumes.
The iodine fumes are brought in as close contact to the surface as possible And if there are any prints which contain certain fatty material or protein material, the iodine fumes simply discolor it to a sort of brownish color. And of course such prints as are developed are photographed for record purposes.
That was done in this case here, but no latent prints were developed.
The next step then was to try an additional method, by chemicals. This was subsequently processed by a 3-percent solution of silver nitrate. The processing with silver nitrate resulted in developing two latent prints. One is what we call a latent palmprint, and the other is what we call a latent fingerprint.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you briefly explain the action of the silver nitrate?
Mr. LATONA. Silver nitrate solution in itself is colorless, and it reacts with the sodium chloride, which is ordinary salt which is found in the perspiration or sweat which is exuded by the sweat pores.
This material covers the fingers. When it touches a surface such as an absorbent material, like paper, it leaves an outline on the paper.
When this salt material, which is left by the fingers on the paper, is immersed in the silver nitrate solution, there is a combining, an immediate combining of--the elements themselves will break down, and they recombine into silver chloride and sodium nitrate. We know that silver is sensitive to light. So that material, after it has been treated with the silver nitrate solution, is placed under a strong light. We utilize a carbon arc lamp, which has considerable ultraviolet light in it. And it will immediately start to discolor the specimen. Wherever there is any salt material, it will discolor it, much more so than the rest of the object, and show exactly where the latent prints have been developed. It is simply a reaction of the silver nitrate with the sodium chloride.
That is all it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you frequently find that the silver nitrate develops a print in a paper object which the iodine fuming cannot develop?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I would say that is true, considerably so. We have more success with silver nitrate than we do with the iodine fumes.
The reason we use both is because of the fact that this material which is exuded by the fingers may fall into one of two main types--protein material and salt material. The iodine fumes will develop protein material. Silver nitrate will develop the salt material.
The reason we use both is because we do not know what was in the subject's fingers or hands or feet. Accordingly, to insure complete coverage, we use both methods. And we use them in that sequence. The iodine first, then the silver nitrate. The iodine is used first because the iodine simply causes a temporary physical change. It will discolor, and then the fumes, upon being left in the open air, will disappear, and then the color will dissolve. Silver nitrate, on the other hand, causes a chemical change and it will permanently affect the change. So if we were to use the silver nitrate process first, then we could not use the iodine fumes. On occasion we have developed fingerprints and palmprints with iodine fumes which failed to develop with the silver nitrate and vice versa.
J.C.Day used the standard black powder because that's what they had available. The FBI had more sophisticated techniques for finding prints back in their FBI lab in Washington (not Chicago). So they found the print on the bag that the Dallas Police couldn't. There's really no mystery here... if you read the testimony and understandd it. I'm going to assume you didn't come up with these claims yourself (they are really old and tired claims), but you read them in a conspiracy book or on a conspiracy site someplace and misplaced your trust in those who withheld all the facts from you, in their desperate attempt to make a mountain out of a teaspoon of dirt.
An interesting note is that both Day and Studebaker claimed to have found the bag independent of each other.
Not a big deal, if true. People often take credit for more than they did after the fact. It happens in work and play, and everywhere else. I would expect no less in the crime of the century.
The Dallas police did not find prints but the FBI did. Who do you believe?
Both. As explained above. All the DPD had at the crime scene was black powder, so they used it. The FBI used more sophisticated methodology later.
Even more puzzling is how did the bag that is claimed to have hidden the rifle get to the home of Ruth Paine? Wesley Frazier testified under oath that LHO did not bring anything home with him on the 22nd of November.
First off, Oswald was under arrest on the evening of the 22nd. Oswald went home with Frazier on the evening of the
21st of November.
People often joke that Oliver Stone's movie
JFK got only three things right: The date, the location, and the victims. So see if you can at least match Stone's record for accuracy.
Secondly, did Frazier search Oswald and his clothing? No? I will point out that a long 8-inch by 40-inch paper sack can be folded over multiple times and put in a pocket. Why would you expect Oswald to dangle the 8x40-inch bag in front of Frazier or for it to be apparent to Frazier, if present?
I'm still waiting for you to explain why Oswald lied in custody about not having curtain rods in a long sack on the 22nd. Surely you can explain that.
There were no traces of oil on the paper bag as there were no traces of paper bag on the rifle.
Yes, so? Is this another where you're simply assuming what you need to prove, like in the case of prints on shells?
On page 97 of the Warren Commission Hearings Vol. IV a Mr. Cadigan of the FBI stated that he could not find any evidence that a rifle was ever housed in the bag. If that bag was used there would have been evidence of a well oiled rifle in the bag..
Can you cite a criminologist who said this? Or is this your own expert opinion, and in what cases have you testified in the past?
plus a Spectrographic test was conducted and found no metal tracings.
New one to me. Can you provide a citation to this supposed fact?
The rifle was never proven to be in the hands of LHO at TSBD
Already asked and answered. It doesn't have to be. Cite a case where it was necessary for the prosecution to put the murder weapon in the accused's hands.
But...
He provably ordered it (order form in his handwriting).
He provably paid for it (money order in his handwriting).
He provably owned it and possessed it (shipped to his PO box, photos show him with the weapon, and his prints are on it in two places).
Moreover, there are six pieces of ballistic evidence indicating that rifle was used in the assassination (three shells recovered from the sniper's nest window, two large fragments recovered from the limo, one nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland).
The evidence also indicates he's the only person on the face of the earth who had:
(a) Knowledge that Oswald owned a rifle
(b) Knowledge that the rifle was hidden in the Paine garage wrapped in a blanket
(c) Access to the Paine garage
(d) Access to the Depository
So far, I've come up with one name that fits all this criteria:
Lee Harvey Oswald.
I've pointed this out before, you ignored it. Please provide your scenario for how you think all this went down. Please provide some other names.
and the rifle was NEVER tested to see if it had even been fired on the 23rd of November.
What's the name of that test that can determine to the day when a rifle was fired? Does such a test even exist, or are you asking Galileo for photos of the far side of the moon - before there were satellites and before photography? Give us a name of that test, please.
And for the third time,
JFK was assassinated on 11/22/63. Not the 23rd.
Wrapping paper was at the TSBD all the time and nobody has come forward and said that LHO made a bag.
The paper bag material matched in all microscopic characteristics to a sample taken from the TSBD after the assassination. James Cadigan of the FBI testified to that.
Mr. DULLES. Could we get just before you continue there, would you identify what 142 is and 677 is?
Mr. EISENBERG. 142 is an apparently homemade paper bag which was found in the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD following the assassination, and which, for the record, is a bag which may have been used to carry this rifle, 139, which was used to commit the assassination. 677 is a sample of paper and tape---and parenthetically, tape was used in the construction of 142---677 is a sample of paper and tape obtained from the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, that is, the very day of the assassination.
...
In all of the observations and physical tests, that I made, I found that for Exhibit 142, the bag, and the paper sample, Commission Exhibit 677, the results were the same.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you just review those? That was the ultraviolet light----
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, briefly, it would be the thickness of beth the paper and the tape, the color under various lighting conditions of both the paper and the tape, the width of the tape, the knurled markings on the surface of the tape, the texture of the fiber, the felting pattern. I hadn't mentioned this before, but if you hold a piece of paper up to the light, you see light and dark areas caused by the way the fibers felt right at the beginning stages of paper manufacture.
There are light and dark areas, and these are called the felting pattern. This is something that will vary depending on how the paper is made, the thickness of the paper, the way that the fibers moved on the papermaking machine, and here again I found that they were the same for beth the known sample, Commission Exhibit 677, and the paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142.
Mr. EISENBERG. In all these cases, did you make the examination both of the tape and the paper in each of the bag and the sample?
Mr. CADIGAN. Oh, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And they were all identical?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. You mentioned before the thickness. How did you measure the thickness of the tape and paper?
Mr. CADIGAN. With a micrometer.
Mr. EISENBERG. How sensitive is it?
Mr. CADIGAN. It reads to four places.
Mr. EISENBERG. How sensitive?
Mr. CADIGAN. Four decimal places.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that one-hundredths?
Mr. CADIGAN. That would be one ten-thousandths.
Mr. EISENBERG. And they were identical in that measurement?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I measured both the paper sack, Exhibit 142, and the known paper sample, Exhibit 677, at 0.0057 inch, that is fifty-seven ten-thousandths.
Mr. EISENBERG. Go ahead, Mr. Cadigan.
Mr. CADIGAN. Do you want me to discuss this replica sack yet?
Mr. EISENBERG. You mentioned a replica bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain what that is?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this is Commission Exhibit 364. It is a paper sack similar to Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School Book Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in Dallas to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit 142 was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and they thought that this would--it wouldn't be fair to the witness to ask "Did you see a bag like that?" So they went to the Texas School Book Depository and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was made December 1?
Mr. CADIGAN. December 1, of 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. Or some 9 or 10 days after the assassination?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was the paper obtained from the same source?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; from the same room.
Mr. EISENBERG. The same room.
Did you examine this paper to see how it compared---that is, the paper in the replica bag, which has already been admitted as Commission Exhibit 364---to see how it compared with the paper in the bag found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, which is Commission's Exhibit 142?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That they were different in color, visual color, felting--that is, the pattern that you see through transmitted light, and they were different under ultraviolet light.
So the bag was made from material identical to that of the TSBD paper in use on the day of the assassination, but not identical to another roll in use after the elapse of just two business days (the 26th and 27th of November).
The 23rd and 24th was the weekend, the 25th was a national day of mourning, the 28th & 29th was Thanksgiving, and the day after Thanksgiving, and the 30th takes us back to the weekend again.
And it bore his palmprint. Please provide your scenario of these known facts.
When did LHO make the bag?
Tell us why it matters, and in what case did the prosecution have to prove how the accused got his weapon to the site of the murder. Tell us why you insist on a level of proof that isn't necessary to obtain a guilty verdict anywhere else in the world. You have photos of him holding the rifle. You have his print on the bag. You have his denial in custody that he took a long sack to work on 11/22/63. Tell us how you make sense of all this.
As I stated before, Frazier said LHO did not take anything home on the 22nd and the previous visit to the Paines (by LHO)was the prior week and the President's motorcade route was not finalized.
Sigh.
Frazier took Oswald to the Paine residence on 11/21/63. Plus, absent a thorough search of Oswald, you can't eliminate the bag from Oswald's person merely because the bag wasn't seen. Presumably, Frazier didn't see Oswald's underwear either on the ride on Thursday evening. That's doesn't mean Oswald went commando. Does it?
And on the morning of the assassination, Frazier didn't look in the paper sack Oswald had. That doesn't mean it was empty, does it?
Why demand a level of proof here that's required no where else?
Plus, the tape used is the tape that is gummed at the source and the tape dispenser is bolted down to the bench, so LHO could not have constructed the bag away from the TSBD.
And this is an argument for his innocence how? Or for a conspiracy how? Somebody constructed that bag, right? Tell us how your argument eliminates Oswald but not 'the true guilty party'.
Nobody saw LHO and the rifle together, if you feel otherwise... please provide those names.
MARINA OSWALD
GEORGE DEMOHRENSCHILDT
MRS DEMOHNRENSCHILDT
Plus, there are photos of him with the rifle. And his prints are on the rifle. Your argument goes nowhere.
I am saying that the evidence provided does not prove that LHO was even a shooter.
Hilarious.
Can you name one other person who had:
(a) Knowledge that Oswald owned a rifle
(b) Knowledge that the rifle was hidden in the Paine garage wrapped in a blanket
(c) Access to the Paine garage
(d) Access to the Depository.
(e) Brought a long sack to the Depository that day.
(f) Lied to the police about bringing a long sack to the Depository that day.
(g) Left his rifle on the sixth floor where a sniper was seen
(h) Left his prints on his rifle
(i) Left six pieces of ballistic evidence that indicated his weapon was used
(j) Admitted he had been in the building during the shooting and left within the first few minutes after the shooting
(k) Admitted he went home with some urgency (taking first a bus and then a cab) and obtained his pistol.
(l) Shot and killed one police office southeast of his home and assaulted another southwest of his home, all within 90 minutes of the assassination.
I keep coming up with one guy, and one guy only. Add to our depth of knowledge here. Name another suspect.
Hank
Oooookay...Frazier testified that he'd never before seen Oswald carry a package like the one he didn't pay much attention to on the 22nd- and? How does that support your (earlier) claim that the bag couldn't have held the rifle?