The Total Unreliability Of Paraffin Tests

[Pat Speer]

E-MAIL FROM GARY MACK:

Subject: Paraffin Tests

Date: 6/8/2015 9:13:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

-------------------

As for DPD comments about the paraffin test results, they were made hours and hours after Oswald, based on other evidence police possessed, had already been charged with killing JFK. As is very clear from media recordings, Curry merely said the test "only showed that he fired a gun."

--------------------------------------------------------------

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Right. And that is NOT an accurate statement, because a paraffin test will not reliably tell you that information. That's the whole point of the discussion I started---the tests are not reliable. They can swing in all directions.

So when Curry told the press (and millions watching on TV) that the paraffin test "showed that he fired a gun", he was not really telling the whole story. He should have said it this way:

"It only shows that he MIGHT have fired a gun. But that kind of test is never conclusive one way or the other, so we can't say for sure."

But I suppose we could surmise that Curry was just playing things a little "dumb" because he didn't want a softer statement (like the one above) to somehow make its way to Oswald's ears (and there seemed to be no way to keep the reporters from shouting out anything they wanted to shout at Oswald during his many trips through the DPD hallways during those 2 days at City Hall).

Is that what you think Curry could have been doing? Was he using a bit of psychology by not telling the whole truth to the press about the uselessness of paraffin tests? I don't know. But I do know the statement he made to the press on 11/23 was not an accurate one.

Another possibility (however remote) is that Curry was just plain ignorant about paraffin test results. Maybe he really DID think that a positive result positively meant that Oswald "fired a gun". ~shrug~

It's hard for me to believe that the POLICE CHIEF in a huge U.S. city could truly be that ignorant of the facts about paraffin tests, however.

DVP

--------------------------------------------------------------

E-MAIL FROM GARY MACK:

Subject: Paraffin Tests

Date: 6/9/2015 3:15:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

-------------------

Hi Dave,

Well, Dave, looks like Burnham's the one who is "conflating", for lie detector tests are always admissible in court as long as the prosecution and defense agree to do so. Besides, when the DPD told Oswald on 11/22 that they could run a paraffin test to determine if he fired a gun, neither he nor they were in court. One was in jail and the other was gathering evidence. And as I recall, not only did Oswald agree to allow the test, he taunted the officers by saying they'd just have to do the test instead of him confessing. What Oswald didn't know, and what Curry certainly didn't want the public to know, was that DPD knew full well that the test results might or might not be conclusive. That is why he said what he did to the press once the paraffin test results came in....and what he told them was accurate. What he left out of his statement was that the test might have been positive for some other reason.

Gary

--------------------------------------------------------------

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No. What Curry told the press about the paraffin test results was not completely accurate. He was stretching the truth, because he very likely knew the positive test result did not NECESSARILY mean what he told the press (and the world) it DEFINITELY DID mean -- i.e., that Oswald had "fired a gun".

He was misleading the press on that topic--without question. Although I agree that his motive for misleading them was likely a valid and legitimate one, versus it being a dastardly and underhanded "cover-up" motive on Chief Curry's behalf.

God forbid I should be the one to defend Jesse Curry, but here goes. Policeman, by and large, trusted the paraffin test at the time of the shooting. Curry's saying "gun" was to correct the impression the test had shown Oswald had fired a rifle. He knew the paraffin test for the cheek had been negative. He was trying to be accurate.

But this was to no avail. Shortly after he spoke, the media started claiming the tests proved Oswald had fired a rifle. Go figure.

From patspeer.com, chapter 4d

On 11-23-63, Dr. M.S Mason and Louie Anderson analyze the paraffin casts of Oswald’s cheek (Exhibit #1), left hand (Exhibit #2), and right hand (Exhibit #3) created by Detective Barnes. The request form for this test, found in the Dallas Archives, records the time of the request as 11:05 A.M. The results read as follows: “No nitrates are found on Exhibit #1. Nitrate patterns consistent with the suspect having discharged a firearm were present on Exhibits #2 and 3. The pattern on Exhibit #3 is typical of the patterns produced in firing a revolver.” As Oswald is reported to have handled his revolver in the movie theater these results do little to establish that he’d fired a rifle at the President. More clearly, the positive result on Oswald's hands suggests that the elapsed time since the shooting was not the cause of the negative result on Oswald's cheek, and that one might reasonably suspect he did not fire the shots that killed the President. But does the Dallas Police Department admit to itself or the media that there may be suspects still at large?

Shortly thereafter, Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry is asked about the tests. He responds, on camera, “I understand that it was positive." When asked what that means, he explains "It only means that he fired a gun.” When asked by a reporter if there were powder marks on Oswald’s cheek, he replies “I don’t know that. I don’t know that.” A cigarette-chomping reporter then asks "That a gun was fired, Chief, not the rifle, or a pistol?" to which Curry responds "That's right." The reporter then says aloud, for his fellow reporters to hear, “We just say a gun.”

Within an hour, Frank McGee of NBC News reports “Oswald still insists he did not kill the president. The paraffin tests proved positive—Oswald did fire a gun during the last twenty-four hours.” The juxtaposition of these statements undoubtedly confuses many into thinking that the paraffin tests proved Oswald had fired a rifle.

A UPI article published shortly thereafter tells millions of readers “Pro-Communist Lee Harvey Oswald was charged today with the assassination of President Kennedy. Police said paraffin results on both of Oswald’s hands were 'positive.'" This article similarly suggests the paraffin tests proved Oswald had fired a rifle.

And from there what was merely misleading information turns into misinformation... In a 1:07 PM recap of the evidence, McGee now tells his viewers "Paraffin tests of the side of Oswald's face proved that he had indeed fired a rifle." At 2:07 PM his colleague Bill Ryan adds to the confusion: "Tests showed that Oswald had gunpowder traces on both his hands, indicating that he did use a rifle."

And amazingly, this end-run around Curry's words becomes the accepted story... Despite the fact that, after first interviewing Curry that morning, CBS' man in Dallas Nelson Benton had repeated Curry's words and explained that the paraffin tests did not prove Oswald fired a rifle, CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite, in an afternoon broadcast, jumps on NBC's bandwagon, and actually outdoes them; Cronkite tells his viewers:"Paraffin tests taken on his hands indicate he did fire a rifle, as well as a revolver."

The next day, 11-24, The Washington Post, in an article on the evidence against Oswald, echoes NBC's and CBS' bad reporting and asserts that a positive paraffin test on both of Oswald's hands indicates he'd fired a rifle. The L.A. Times on this day, in its rundown of evidence against Oswald, similarly details: "Police reported, however, that paraffin tests had disclosed that both of Oswald's hands had fired a gun. They said it was not likely that both hands would have shown powder marks if Oswald had fired only the 38-caliber snub-nosed revolver which was used to kill Tippit." This, of course, is not true. Finding nitrates on both hands of a suspect has never been considered evidence the suspect had fired a rifle. Instead, the finding of nitrates on both hands suggests either that Oswald had handled his revolver with both hands, or that his hands had been contaminated by an outside source.

An article in the Fort Worth Star Telegram is even more off base, and misrepresents not just the conclusions to be reached from the paraffin tests, but their results. It asserts “A paraffin test showed positive results on both the hands and cheek of the 24 year-old ex-Marine. This, officers said, showed that the man had fired a gun, probably a rifle.” Later that day, after Oswald has been killed, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade tells reporters “I would say without any doubt (Oswald) was the killer of the President…There’s no doubt in my mind we would have convicted him. I’ve sent people to the electric chair on less.” When asked about the paraffin tests, he says “Yes, I’ve got paraffin tests that showed he had recently fired a gun.” When asked by an alert reporter if this meant a rifle, he repeats “A gun.” This last statement indicates he knew full well that there was nothing about these tests to suggest Oswald had fired a rifle. And yet, the transcript to this taped press conference (as published by NBC in 1967) indicates he said just the opposite, and had instead proclaimed "Paraffin tests showed that he (Oswald) had fired a rifle recently."

If NBC had simply gotten it wrong, repeatedly, they weren't alone. The 11-25 Washington Post article on Wade's press conference once again runs down the evidence against Oswald, and reports: "Paraffin tests for gunpowder on both hands were "positive," indicating he recently had shot a rifle."

Amazingly, on 11-25, the New York Times presents its own list of the evidence against Oswald, and gets it equally wrong. It inaccurately reports that paraffin tests showed “particles of gunpowder from a weapon, probably a rifle, on Oswald’s cheek and hands.” Unlike NBC, and The Washington Post, however, the Times has someone to blame for their mistake. They cite a source for this misinformation; disturbingly, it's J. Gordon Shanklin, Special Agent in Charge of the Dallas FBI.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

But Curry's "fired a gun" remark was still NOT totally accurate. And that's because Curry surely knew that paraffin tests were not reliable tests. Period. But via his remark, he left the impression that there was no doubt at all that Oswald HAD definitely "fired a gun" based on the positive paraffin result on LHO's hands.

Can there be any doubt at all that after listening to Curry saying "it only shows he fired a gun", millions of people got the impression that the paraffin test was CONCLUSIVE and therefore had proven that Oswald HAD, indeed, "fired a gun" based on that test? Of course that's what anyone would think after hearing Curry's remarks to the press corps. How could they possibly NOT think such a thing (unless they worked in a police crime lab)?

Edited June 12, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Vitali Zhuk]

Thanks David. It's very important information to explain paraffin tests correctly.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Vitali Zhuk

[Greg Burnham]

--------------------------------------------------------------

E-MAIL FROM GARY MACK:

Subject: Paraffin Tests

Date: 6/9/2015 3:15:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

-------------------

Hi Dave,

Well, Dave, looks like Burnham's the one who is "conflating", for lie detector tests are always admissible in court as long as the prosecution and defense agree to do so. Besides, when the DPD told Oswald on 11/22 that they could run a paraffin test to determine if he fired a gun, neither he nor they were in court. One was in jail and the other was gathering evidence. And as I recall, not only did Oswald agree to allow the test, he taunted the officers by saying they'd just have to do the test instead of him confessing. What Oswald didn't know, and what Curry certainly didn't want the public to know, was that DPD knew full well that the test results might or might not be conclusive. That is why he said what he did to the press once the paraffin test results came in....and what he told them was accurate. What he left out of his statement was that the test might have been positive for some other reason.

Gary

--------------------------------------------------------------

Technically accurate, but practically misleading AND entirely ridiculous.

If given the opportunity to refuse, no prosecutor would ever agree to admit exculpatory evidence, such as, a negative (for lying) polygraph result. Conversely, if given the opportunity to refuse, no defense attorney would ever agree to admit inculpatory evidence, such as, a positive (for lying) polygraph result. Therefore, polygraph results are--for all intents and purposes--not admissible due to the objection of either side. Since a polygraph test result is only useful to one, but never to both sides in a criminal case, it is a foregone conclusion that polygraph results are, in effect, inadmissible. The exceptions to this are so scant as to be non-existent.

Gary plays with words and wording. He loses context and relevance.

He doesn't even post for himself.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Kenneth Drew]

"Also left out is the very simple fact that there was no way [to] test the specific shooting circumstances by a nitrate or any other kind of test. Maybe the swirling wind at the Elm/Houston intersection blew any gases away from Oswald's cheek as he pulled the trigger? "

Swirling wind? While firing three shots? And nothing stayed on his cheeks?

Fairy tale indeed Gary.

I agree that Gary is spinning a 'fairy tale'. He knows, that while it may be true that the presence of nitrates do not prove a weapon was fired, it can be said if a weapon was fired and the area had not been 'cleaned' that the nitrates will be present. So if Oswald had fired a rifle, there would be nitrates. I'm sure that swirling wind in the snipers nest is what caused the problem, even though some don't think it interfered with shooting ability.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Greg Burnham]

The presence of nitrates on the cheek does not necessarily prove a weapon (in this case, a rifle) was fired. However, the absence of nitrates on the cheek proves that either:

1. the suspect did not fire a weapon
2. he cleaned his cheek to remove the nitrates prior to the paraffin test

However, unless the area (his cheek) was thoroughly cleaned, the absence of nitrates on his cheek is exculpatory.

Moreover, that he had a positive for nitrates test result for his hands is even more exculpatory than if his hands had come out negative! Why? Because the nitrates on his hands, no matter how they got there (from the boxes in the TSBD, from firing a pistol, or any other way), were NOT washed off at the time of the paraffin test.

So we are to believe that Oswald had the wherewithal to appreciate the necessity of washing all of the nitrates off of his cheek, but he failed to appreciate the importance of washing them off of his hands?

And, if so, how did he manage to thoroughly wash ALL of the nitrates off of his cheek without washing them completely off of his hands in the process?

Perhaps he had help. Ruth Paine could have washed them off of his cheek for him and advised him to leave them on his hands for this very exculpatory reason!

Oops. That can't be.

THAT would be a conspiracy.

And--wait for it Jon G. Tidd--such a theory would violate Occam's Razor in its complexity.

[Vitali Zhuk]

Also LHO had opportunity to wash his face on the second floor or at home and wiped his sweat from his face several times.

May be four or five revolver shots produced much more nitrates than three shots from bolt-action rifle. But LHO had no time to clean the revolver nitrates.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Vitali Zhuk