Why CBS Covered up the JFK Case (pt1)

[Pat Speer]

I see where you're going, Tom. You're trying to write off the results for Oswald's hand casts by claiming the paraffin was applied too long after the shooting to be conclusive. A jury might agree. But the truth is that the barium and antimony on Oswald's hand casts came from somewhere, and the most logical conclusion is that it came from his revolver.

Now, that said, the extra barium on the back of the cheek cast suggests tampering. A wily lawyer could probably spin this into a reasonable doubt about the hand casts as well.

[Tom Neal]

I see where you're going, Tom. You're trying to write off the results for Oswald's hand casts by claiming the paraffin was applied too long after the shooting to be conclusive.

I'm not writing off anything - unlike you, I'm following the test results. Inconclusive means it doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Your experts, who like you, are eager to find LHO guilty, at no time stated that the test results "suggested" anything. This is your suggestion, not theirs, although from your ambiguous writing it is difficult to tell. Perhaps that was your intent.

I see where you went, Pat. You're trying to write off the results for Oswald's hand casts by claiming an "Inconclusive" means that it "suggests" his guilt, when it actually indicates his innocence.

But the truth is that the barium and antimony on Oswald's hand casts came from somewhere

Since you state you have the results, why don't you post the amounts of these substances as detected on LHO? You can also include the control data to show how much is present on someone who did not fire a gun. Yes, these substances can be present on someone's hands who has NOT fired a gun...

Additionally, you didn't answer my questions regarding LHO's palms and the back of EACH hand. IIRC he tested Positive for nitrates on the palms of BOTH hands as well as the back. Was it the same for the NAA tests? It should be...

Now, that said, the extra barium on the back of the cheek cast suggests tampering.

Yes, it does. And despite this, you have chosen to believe the results of the hand tests, even putting your own spin on an Inconclusive result. Do I detect more than a "suggestion" of BIAS on your part?

A wily lawyer could probably spin this into a reasonable doubt about the hand casts as well.

It doesn't take a "wiley" lawyer or ANY "spin" to prove reasonable doubt here. Particularly in this case where evidence tampering has run rampart. CE-399 for example. Doesn't this "suggest" tampering is even more likely regarding the NAA tests?? Edited April 27, 2016 by Tom Neal

[John Crites]

That rifle (the MC) don't just discharge gunpowder residue when firing, it spray paints it.

Also, looking down through the small scope at the target, the vast amount of smoke when the bolt is pulled back is going to leave film on the face.

Oswald tested negative for the most part; he did not fire a rifle that day - especially that rifle.

[Pat Speer]

I see where you're going, Tom. You're trying to write off the results for Oswald's hand casts by claiming the paraffin was applied too long after the shooting to be conclusive.

I'm not writing off anything - unlike you, I'm following the test results. Inconclusive means it doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Your experts, who like you, are eager to find LHO guilty, at no time stated that the test results "suggested" anything. This is your suggestion, not theirs, although from your ambiguous writing it is difficult to tell. Perhaps that was your intent.

I see where you went, Pat. You're trying to write off the results for Oswald's hand casts by claiming an "Inconclusive" means that it "suggests" his guilt, when it actually indicates his innocence.

But the truth is that the barium and antimony on Oswald's hand casts came from somewhere

Since you state you have the results, why don't you post the amounts of these substances as detected on LHO? You can also include the control data to show how much is present on someone who did not fire a gun. Yes, these substances can be present on someone's hands who has NOT fired a gun...

Additionally, you didn't answer my questions regarding LHO's palms and the back of EACH hand. IIRC he tested Positive for nitrates on the palms of BOTH hands as well as the back. Was it the same for the NAA tests? It should be...

Now, that said, the extra barium on the back of the cheek cast suggests tampering.

Yes, it does. And despite this, you have chosen to believe the results of the hand tests, even putting your own spin on an Inconclusive result. Do I detect more than a "suggestion" of BIAS on your part?

A wily lawyer could probably spin this into a reasonable doubt about the hand casts as well.

It doesn't take a "wiley" lawyer or ANY "spin" to prove reasonable doubt here. Particularly in this case where evidence tampering has run rampart. CE-399 for example. Doesn't this "suggest" tampering is even more likely regarding the NAA tests??

Starting with the WC, the NAA tests on the paraffin casts have been written off as inconclusive, but suggestive of Oswald's guilt. While Weisberg uncovered a lot of valuable information, I was the first to do the homework and demonstrate that these tests suggested Oswald was innocent of shooting Kennedy.

You really should read my chapter on this--it will answer a lot of your questions.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%3Acastsofcontention

P.S. As far as the possibility of tampering...the hand casts tested positive for nitrates. It's doubtful anyone would feel the need to tamper with them. The cheek cast, however, tested negative for nitrates. The DPD (and perhaps FBI) would have been frightened to death they would come up negative for GSR as well. And lo and behold, there's plentiful barium...on the back of the cast (the part that never touched Oswald's cheek).

This suggests to me that someone tried to tamper with the cast but didn't know what he was doing.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Pat Speer

[Tom Neal]

As far as the possibility of tampering...the hand casts tested positive for nitrates. It's doubtful anyone would feel the need to tamper with them.

You have GOT to be kidding with this statement. The casts tested positive = it's doubtful they were tampered with?!!! LHO was not identified at the murder scene, the shooting time was altered, and there was no ballistic match to his .38. ANY tampering that was done would be to produce a positive from a negative. IF the tests had been NEGATIVE, which is NOT what they wanted, THAT would indicate there was no tampering. Your statement is a WC type of logic.

DPD WANTED a positive nitrate test. They knew that the longer they waited, the less chance they had of obtaining one. So why did they wait 8 hours to perform the nitrate tests? Did it take that long to contaminate his hands?

In regard to the hand casts: He allegedly fired 5 shots, and that is all the nitrates found on his hands? And that's assuming that DPD was honest when they made up their paperwork, and that all of the "dots" are not artifacts from the copying process.

The above are ALL indicative of tampering. With their reputation, and the fact that they lied about the negative results to the press, are we to think that DPD/FBI would NEVER tamper with evidence?

"Dr. W.F. Mason of Dallas concluded, after tests, that paraffin casts made of Oswalds hands contained traces of nitrate consistent with the residue on the hands of a person who had recently handled *or* fired a firearm." This doesn't "suggest", it STATES that just HANDLING a pistol (which he did) is enough to produce the results achieved. There goes your entire premise that "suggests" he shot Tippit FIVE times. EVERY shot fired would have put more nitrates on his shooting hand. LHO was right-handed, yet there are almost as many nitrate deposits on his left hand as his right. Did he shoot Tippit 3 times with his right hand, and then 2 times with his left hand? And how did he get so much on his PALMS while holding the pistol?

FALSE POSITIVES:

Cunningham admits: The only negative results were on the 20 people who were run as a control and who had never fired a gun, and even for those people they all got positive reactions at least on one hand.

When asked why the FBI continues to perform paraffin tests if they have so many *false positives*, Cunningham confides: Many local law-enforcement agencies do conduct these tests... However, in reporting, we give them qualified results, since we frequently will get some reaction. Numerous reactions or a few reactions will be found on the casts. However, in no way does this indicate that a person has recently fired a weapon.

Could his hands become contaminated in any way, OTHER than firing a hand gun?

Cunningham: "Then we list a few of the oxidizing agents, the common ones, such as in urine and tobacco and cosmetics and a few other things that one may come in contact with. Even Clorox would give you a positive reaction."

But what about the barium and antimony from the NAA tests:

Norman Redlich memo: "barium and antimony are found on a variety of common substances."

To summarize:

LHO tested positive on his hands.

He handled a pistol and THAT ALONE would produce a positive.

Control subjects who have not even handled a gun, frequently test positive.

The FBI firearms expert stated: "...in no way does this indicate that a person has recently fired a weapon."

Additionally, urine, tobacco, cosmetics, and "a few other things" cause a false positive.

Urine: Did he pee during the 8+ hours prior to his arrest? That seems likely, and as already stated he wasn't allowed to wash his hands. Invalid test.

A "few other things:" How about the handling of cardboard boxes? Nitrates are used in the manufacturing process of cardboard and LHO DID handle cardboard boxes.

The NAA testing ONLY proved that he had handled "common substances."

Conclusion:

Neither the Nitrate test, NOR the NAA test even "suggest" that he fired a rifle OR a pistol.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Pat Speer]

From the chapter Tom refuses to read:

While the paraffin test for nitrates performed in Dallas had already fallen in disfavor by 1963, its use remained widespread for years afterward. In April 1965, Dr. LeMoyne Snyder, one of the nation's top forensic experts, published an article in Popular Science defending the work of the Warren Commission. He was critical on one point, however--its criticism of the paraffin test. He declared: "I have used it often with good results...I still regard it as a valuable investigative tool." As late as 1977, in fact, Snyder still stood by his guns. In his prominent text Homicide Investigation, he assured: "In investigating the assassination of President Kennedy, the Warren Commission was informed that the dermal nitrate test had no value. In view of the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald fired both a rifle and a revolver several times shortly before his arrest, it is very possible and even probable that a dermal nitrate test, properly conducted, would have revealed very valuable information." As detailed in his 1965 article, Snyder believed the test results for Oswald had little merit, as the test was conducted in an office after "Oswald's hands were probably contaminated by ink from fingerprinting." This last statement, which has no support whatsoever in the historical record, indicates that Snyder suspected something was wrong with the tests, and that, much as Guinn, he had rationalized this by blaming it on the incompetence of the DPD.

In January 1967, a detailed study of paraffin test results was published in The Journal of Forensic Sciences. This study concluded that the test was simply not reliable. Even so, it revealed some interesting probabilities, some of which have a bearing on the Oswald case. For one, the study showed that “Contrary to the general belief, it was the rifle rather than the revolver that demonstrated the broadest dispersion” of nitrates. Accordingly, 75% of those firing rifles were found to have nitrates on the fingers of their left hand. Bear in mind, this was after one shot. Oswald's paraffin test revealed no nitrates on the fingers of his left hand, after purportedly firing three shots with a rifle and five shots with a revolver.

An October 1974 article by S.S. Krishnan in The Journal of Forensic Sciences reported on a similar, albeit much smaller, study using neutron activation analysis to detect gunshot residue. This study found that one could predict whether or not someone fired a weapon with 80% accuracy by comparing the relative barium, antimony, and lead levels found on the test subject’s hands. It also found that the closer the levels, the more likely it was the test subject had merely handled a weapon. As Krishnan's study found that one should expect to find on average 2.33 times as much antimony, and 1.66 times as much barium, on the shooting hand of one who'd fired a .38 revolver, when compared to his non-shooting hand, and as Oswald's ratios were 2.18 for antimony and 2.01 for barium, it looks like Oswald did indeed fire his revolver on November 22, 1963.

That the residue on Oswald's right hand came from his merely handling his weapon is discounted by a more recent study as well. For this study, as described in the November 1995 Journal of the Forensic Sciences, the hands of 43 police officers—none of whom had recently fired a weapon-- were tested to see if they had picked up gunshot residue from merely handling their weapons. The tests were positive for only 3 of them.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

This is a very informative exchange between Tom and Pat.

I have a question for both of you.

A long time ago I was under the impression that the paraffin test done for nitrates (not NAA) had a problem in that false positives could easily occur. I think both of you also understand this to be the case.

Later, I got the impression that testing for the WC showed that the nitrate test also produces a lot of false negatives. And that its use had been discontinued because of that.

However, some things written in this thread seem to be saying that false negatives are not a big problem. At least not if the subject doesn't wash up after the shooting (or after handling a gun). And if a long period of time hasn't passed since the shooting.

Can you two give me your opinions on this? What you've read and understood to be the case.

[John Crites]

From the chapter Tom refuses to read:

While the paraffin test for nitrates performed in Dallas had already fallen in disfavor by 1963, its use remained widespread for years afterward. In April 1965, Dr. LeMoyne Snyder, one of the nation's top forensic experts, published an article in Popular Science defending the work of the Warren Commission. He was critical on one point, however--its criticism of the paraffin test. He declared: "I have used it often with good results...I still regard it as a valuable investigative tool." As late as 1977, in fact, Snyder still stood by his guns. In his prominent text Homicide Investigation, he assured: "In investigating the assassination of President Kennedy, the Warren Commission was informed that the dermal nitrate test had no value. In view of the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald fired both a rifle and a revolver several times shortly before his arrest, it is very possible and even probable that a dermal nitrate test, properly conducted, would have revealed very valuable information." As detailed in his 1965 article, Snyder believed the test results for Oswald had little merit, as the test was conducted in an office after "Oswald's hands were probably contaminated by ink from fingerprinting." This last statement, which has no support whatsoever in the historical record, indicates that Snyder suspected something was wrong with the tests, and that, much as Guinn, he had rationalized this by blaming it on the incompetence of the DPD.

In January 1967, a detailed study of paraffin test results was published in The Journal of Forensic Sciences. This study concluded that the test was simply not reliable. Even so, it revealed some interesting probabilities, some of which have a bearing on the Oswald case. For one, the study showed that “Contrary to the general belief, it was the rifle rather than the revolver that demonstrated the broadest dispersion” of nitrates. Accordingly, 75% of those firing rifles were found to have nitrates on the fingers of their left hand. Bear in mind, this was after one shot. Oswald's paraffin test revealed no nitrates on the fingers of his left hand, after purportedly firing three shots with a rifle and five shots with a revolver.

An October 1974 article by S.S. Krishnan in The Journal of Forensic Sciences reported on a similar, albeit much smaller, study using neutron activation analysis to detect gunshot residue. This study found that one could predict whether or not someone fired a weapon with 80% accuracy by comparing the relative barium, antimony, and lead levels found on the test subject’s hands. It also found that the closer the levels, the more likely it was the test subject had merely handled a weapon. As Krishnan's study found that one should expect to find on average 2.33 times as much antimony, and 1.66 times as much barium, on the shooting hand of one who'd fired a .38 revolver, when compared to his non-shooting hand, and as Oswald's ratios were 2.18 for antimony and 2.01 for barium, it looks like Oswald did indeed fire his revolver on November 22, 1963.

That the residue on Oswald's right hand came from his merely handling his weapon is discounted by a more recent study as well. For this study, as described in the November 1995 Journal of the Forensic Sciences, the hands of 43 police officers—none of whom had recently fired a weapon-- were tested to see if they had picked up gunshot residue from merely handling their weapons. The tests were positive for only 3 of them.

Pat, do you know if any other employees of the SBD or other businesses in the building were tested for residue on their hands the day of the assassination?

[Pat Speer]

This is a very informative exchange between Tom and Pat.

I have a question for both of you.

A long time ago I was under the impression that the paraffin test done for nitrates (not NAA) had a problem in that false positives could easily occur. I think both of you also understand this to be the case.

Later, I got the impression that testing for the WC showed that the nitrate test also produces a lot of false negatives. And that its use had been discontinued because of that.

However, some things written in this thread seem to be saying that false negatives are not a big problem. At least not if the subject doesn't wash up after the shooting (or after handling a gun). And if a long period of time hasn't passed since the shooting.

Can you two give me your opinions on this? What you've read and understood to be the case.

There's a lot of confusion regarding the paraffin tests. Much of this stems from the fact two different tests were performed on the same paraffin casts. The original test for nitrates was demonstrated to be too unreliable to use in a court of law. But, as I remember, the 1967 study which pretty much killed this test also acknowledged that it was accurate most of the time.

Although the FBI dissed these tests in their 1964 testimony, moreover, they cited the conclusions of the hand tests in their 1963 report on the shooting as evidence of Oswald's guilt, and only started dissing the accuracy of the tests after Mark Lane found out the cheek test was negative, and started telling this to the public.

It is my understanding that they continued to perform these tests for years after, moreover, and that the nitrate test was killed more by the 1967 study than by the FBI's testimony to the WC.

[Pat Speer]

From the chapter Tom refuses to read:

While the paraffin test for nitrates performed in Dallas had already fallen in disfavor by 1963, its use remained widespread for years afterward. In April 1965, Dr. LeMoyne Snyder, one of the nation's top forensic experts, published an article in Popular Science defending the work of the Warren Commission. He was critical on one point, however--its criticism of the paraffin test. He declared: "I have used it often with good results...I still regard it as a valuable investigative tool." As late as 1977, in fact, Snyder still stood by his guns. In his prominent text Homicide Investigation, he assured: "In investigating the assassination of President Kennedy, the Warren Commission was informed that the dermal nitrate test had no value. In view of the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald fired both a rifle and a revolver several times shortly before his arrest, it is very possible and even probable that a dermal nitrate test, properly conducted, would have revealed very valuable information." As detailed in his 1965 article, Snyder believed the test results for Oswald had little merit, as the test was conducted in an office after "Oswald's hands were probably contaminated by ink from fingerprinting." This last statement, which has no support whatsoever in the historical record, indicates that Snyder suspected something was wrong with the tests, and that, much as Guinn, he had rationalized this by blaming it on the incompetence of the DPD.

In January 1967, a detailed study of paraffin test results was published in The Journal of Forensic Sciences. This study concluded that the test was simply not reliable. Even so, it revealed some interesting probabilities, some of which have a bearing on the Oswald case. For one, the study showed that “Contrary to the general belief, it was the rifle rather than the revolver that demonstrated the broadest dispersion” of nitrates. Accordingly, 75% of those firing rifles were found to have nitrates on the fingers of their left hand. Bear in mind, this was after one shot. Oswald's paraffin test revealed no nitrates on the fingers of his left hand, after purportedly firing three shots with a rifle and five shots with a revolver.

An October 1974 article by S.S. Krishnan in The Journal of Forensic Sciences reported on a similar, albeit much smaller, study using neutron activation analysis to detect gunshot residue. This study found that one could predict whether or not someone fired a weapon with 80% accuracy by comparing the relative barium, antimony, and lead levels found on the test subject’s hands. It also found that the closer the levels, the more likely it was the test subject had merely handled a weapon. As Krishnan's study found that one should expect to find on average 2.33 times as much antimony, and 1.66 times as much barium, on the shooting hand of one who'd fired a .38 revolver, when compared to his non-shooting hand, and as Oswald's ratios were 2.18 for antimony and 2.01 for barium, it looks like Oswald did indeed fire his revolver on November 22, 1963.

That the residue on Oswald's right hand came from his merely handling his weapon is discounted by a more recent study as well. For this study, as described in the November 1995 Journal of the Forensic Sciences, the hands of 43 police officers—none of whom had recently fired a weapon-- were tested to see if they had picked up gunshot residue from merely handling their weapons. The tests were positive for only 3 of them.

Pat, do you know if any other employees of the SBD or other businesses in the building were tested for residue on their hands the day of the assassination?

I wish they had done this. But no, there's no evidence anyone else was tested.

[Sandy Larsen]

Can you two give me your opinions on this? What you've read and understood to be the case.

There's a lot of confusion regarding the paraffin tests. Much of this stems from the fact two different tests were performed on the same paraffin casts. The original test for nitrates was demonstrated to be too unreliable to use in a court of law. But, as I remember, the 1967 study which pretty much killed this test also acknowledged that it was accurate most of the time.

Although the FBI dissed these tests in their 1964 testimony, moreover, they cited the conclusions of the hand tests in their 1963 report on the shooting as evidence of Oswald's guilt, and only started dissing the accuracy of the tests after Mark Lane found out the cheek test was negative, and started telling this to the public.

It is my understanding that they continued to perform these tests for years after, moreover, and that the nitrate test was killed more by the 1967 study than by the FBI's testimony to the WC.

Thanks Pat. I'd like to summarize my understanding of the tests on Oswald and their interpretations. Please tell me where I'm wrong.

1. The results of the nitrate tests on Oswald's hands were inconclusive. (On what grounds were they found to be inconclusive?)
2. The result of the nitrate test on Oswald's right cheek was negative. The result probably was NOT a false positive.
3. The results of the NAA tests on Oswald's hands were both positive. But the results could be false positives.
4. The result of the NAA test on Oswald's right cheek was negative. But due to contamination of the paraffin, the test was proclaimed to be inconclusive.

Did I get that right? What's the answer to my question in item 1?

NOTES TO SELF:

I need to consider what Tom Neal wrote in Posts 255, 257, 260, and 274:

1. Is there any mention in your research regarding the number of shots fired v. the amount of GSR expected? Surely, after 5 shots, an "inconclusive" result *suggests* that LHO did NOT fire a handgun, more than it suggests that he did.

   He allegedly fired 5 shots, and that is all the nitrates found on his hands? And that's assuming that DPD was honest when they made up their paperwork, and that all of the "dots" are not artifacts from the copying process.

2. EVERY shot fired would have put more nitrates on his shooting hand. LHO was right-handed, yet there are almost as many nitrate deposits on his left hand as his right.

3. How about his palms v. the backs of his hands? IIRC he tested Positive for nitrates on the palms of BOTH hands as well as the back. (Was it the same for the NAA tests? It should be...) How did he get so much on his PALMS while holding the pistol?

4. The NAA tests were performed months after the casts were made.

5. In post 274 Tom notes that nitrates and other GSR components (both antimony and barium?) are found on ordinary items.

Albert Doyle wrote the following on another forum:

The actual test showed some small spots on the back of the hand and more residue on the palms than was on the back of the hand.

As DiEugenio correctly pointed-out, the way a normal handgun paraffin test works is the palm is gripping the handle and therefore doesn't get any escaping gas residue.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Neal]

From the chapter Tom refuses to read:

GREAT comeback, Pat. Channel DVP much?

I quoted from YOUR chapter MULTIPLE times and you resort to this as a lead-in to make me look stubborn and ill-informed? Or don't you even recognize your own writing?

More to say, but I don't have any time today...

Tom

[Pat Speer]

Can you two give me your opinions on this? What you've read and understood to be the case.

There's a lot of confusion regarding the paraffin tests. Much of this stems from the fact two different tests were performed on the same paraffin casts. The original test for nitrates was demonstrated to be too unreliable to use in a court of law. But, as I remember, the 1967 study which pretty much killed this test also acknowledged that it was accurate most of the time.

Although the FBI dissed these tests in their 1964 testimony, moreover, they cited the conclusions of the hand tests in their 1963 report on the shooting as evidence of Oswald's guilt, and only started dissing the accuracy of the tests after Mark Lane found out the cheek test was negative, and started telling this to the public.

It is my understanding that they continued to perform these tests for years after, moreover, and that the nitrate test was killed more by the 1967 study than by the FBI's testimony to the WC.

Thanks Pat. I'd like to summarize my understanding of the tests on Oswald and their interpretations. Please tell me where I'm wrong.

1. The results of the nitrate tests on Oswald's hands were inconclusive. (On what grounds were they found to be inconclusive?)
2. The result of the nitrate test on Oswald's right cheek was negative. The result probably was NOT a false positive.
3. The results of the NAA tests on Oswald's hands were both positive. But the results could be false positives.
4. The result of the NAA test on Oswald's right cheek was negative. But due to contamination of the paraffin, the test was proclaimed to be inconclusive.

Did I get that right? What's the answer to my question in item 1?

Note: I just wrote a detailed response to this, that got eaten just as I was about to post. Is anyone else having this problem? Is the forum now booting out responses that take longer than 10 minutes?

In any event, here's the quick answer.

1. The results for the nitrate tests of the hands were positive . The overall accuracy of this test has since come in question. But the results were positive. This was then used to suggest Oswald's guilt in killing both Tippit and Kennedy.

2. The result for the nitrate test of the cheek was negative. This was hidden from the public until Mark Lane started talking about it. The WC and FBI then decided to trash the accuracy of the nitrate tests.

3. The results for the gsr tests of the hands were positive. The results of these tests could probably be introduced into a court of law today. There is a chance the gsr came from merely handling the revolver, however, and the likelihood of this would undoubtedly be contested by battling experts.

4. The result for the gsr test of the cheek was proclaimed as inconclusive, due to there being too much barium on the back of the cast (the side that never touched Oswald's face). This puzzled me, as the level of antimony on the cast wae never revealed, and a low quantity of antimony on the cast would make the result a negative, no matter how much barium was found on the cheek cast, back or front. With the help of the Weisberg Archives at Hood Library I received the actual numbers, and sure enough, the level of antimony indicates a negative result.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Pat Speer

[Tom Neal]

3. The results for the gsr tests of the hands were positive. There is a chance the gsr came from merely handling the revolver

In response to Sandy's question:

Mr. Speer,

"..a chance?"

AGAIN, from your own website, which I quoted from earlier which provoked a response from you that I "refuse" to read your document...

FROM MY EARLIER POST: Dr. W.F. Mason of Dallas concluded, after tests, that paraffin casts made of Oswalds hands contained traces of nitrate

consistent with the residue on the hands of a person who had recently HANDLED *or* fired a firearm. This doesn't state there's "a chance", it STATES that

just HANDLING a pistol (which he did) is enough to produce the results achieved.

If Mr. Spear would stop accusing me of refusing to read his document when I OBVIOUSLY had or I couldn't have quoted from it, and read HIS own document

AND my posts, which mention more than one statement from an expert (also from HIS document) that LHO's tests indicate that HANDLING a pistol (which he did)

caused the positive results.

So Mr. Spear, should we ignore Dr. D.F. Mason et al as you have ignored YOUR OWN document AND my posts?

If you ever bother to respond to this post, we can get around to a more recent post of yours...

Edited April 29, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Michael Walton]

Note: I just wrote a detailed response to this, that got eaten just as I was about to post. Is anyone else having this problem? Is the forum now booting out responses that take longer than 10 minutes?

For what it's worth, I never *ever* type posts in the forum reply box. Instead, I type them in Notepad (because if you do it in Word, it sometimes carries the formatting of Word over to the reply box). That way, you can type to your heart's content in Notepad, even save the file to go back to later, and then just copy and paste into the forum reply box when you're ready.

It's a little bit more work, but you'll never lose anything.