Fingerprints of the Tippit killer? The only way to find out is to find out.

[Greg Doudna]

Fingerprints of the Tippit killer?

The exclusion of a match of Oswald’s fingerprints to fingerprints lifted from the Tippit patrol car twenty minutes after Tippit was killed, from two places on that car where the killer was positioned with respect to the car according to witnesses, should in itself give cognitive dissonance to perceptions of certainty that Oswald was the gunman who killed Tippit, in the absence of an identification of those fingerprints established to be someone innocuous.

The killer was at the passenger side at the right front of the Tippit cruiser. Prints from a right hand were lifted from the right front car bumper which wrapped around to the passenger side. How many people put a right hand as low as on a car’s right front bumper, let alone after also leaving fingerprints below the right front passenger window exactly where the killer’s hands were seen? What is the obvious innocuous explanation for the right hand on the right front bumper? There is no obvious innocuous explanation. There may be possible or conceivable explanations but prima facie those prints have the appearance of being from the killer of Tippit. The same individual who put a right hand as low as the right front bumper, left fingerprints at the top of the right front passenger door just below the right front window. Helen Markham showed visually how she saw from a distance the killer place his outstretched arms at the elbows, hands clasped together, leaning with his forearms and hands resting on the top of the right front door of the patrol car talking to Tippit through a window. (See Helen Markham illustrate with her arms and hands what she saw at 0:59-1:07 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LjmY3TaA_I.) In an Al Chapman interview Jimmy Burt said he witnessed the killer with his hands on the Tippit cruiser near the right front passenger window. The fingerprints from the two locations were determined by a latent fingerprint examiner in 1994, published by Myers in 1998, to be from a single individual who was not Oswald.

Who did leave those fingerprints? 

The only way to find out is to find out.

A failed attempt to interest Myers in helping bring about forensic examination and identification of the Tippit patrol car fingerprints

I sought to interest Dale Myers in a new expert examination of the Tippit patrol car fingerprints. It did not go well. 

I cc’d Paul Hoch, Tracy Parnell, and Steve Roe, members of a mailing list of Paul Hoch, individuals I believed Myers would find favorable and not objectionable. As background, as a research associate at the University of Copenhagen and since, I have participated on a European team in publishing scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. In these publications personal views are set aside and there is professional cooperation in reporting science—methods, procedures, setup and description of the problem being investigated, findings and analysis and conclusions that all coauthors sign off on (the scientific publications of which I have been a coauthor can be seen on my page at academia.edu.). I know the process in coordinating scientific publications with multiple coauthors and I had something similar in mind with this, if I had received a favorable reply from Myers.

On Aug 13, 2022 I wrote:

Dale, would you consider assisting or helping in an attempt to establish an identification of the individual who left the fingerprints lifted from the two locations on the Tippit patrol car, if such is possible in light of today’s databases and expertise?

Sincerely,

Greg Doudna

On Aug 16, 2022 Myers replied negatively, objecting to the cc’s, and continued:

As I see it, your not-so-private request has all the earmarks of a loaded question. 

I’ve privately addressed a similar request from you back on September 9, 2021. At that time (9/7) you wrote, “I posted a draft outline of an argument for what I realize you and every other rational person on earth at this point consider a non-starter or impossible: an argument for Oswald’s innocence in the Tippit killing. On the one hand I do not wish to impose or draw you into what from your point of view might be a time-consuming, fruitless rehearsal in private email of what you have labored to address in print. On the other hand anything you might wish to say, now or in time to come, I would value and respect.”

I responded (9/9): “Given my position on the Tippit case, as presented in ‘With Malice’ and other publicly available writings, I am not sure what kind of response you expect from me. I can assure you that I have no desire to comment on anything that is in draft form or does not contain citations. If and when you complete your dissertation, I would be happy to review it. Thanks for your interest.”

I don’t have any more interest now than I did then in assisting you in vetting your opinions and commentary on the Tippit shooting.

I can assure you that future requests of this nature will be met with the same response.

I had not asked Myers to vet any opinions on the Tippit case in my inquiry of Aug 13. I did not understand why he was responding as if I had. On Aug 16, 2022 I tried again:

Dale, this is not about me but about getting science done, exactly for the same reasons you obtained and reported the Lutz examination of the fingerprints in 1994 which resulted in information, data, not previously known.

With your experience and name you are probably the best positioned person in the world to accomplish this.

Would you consider an attempt to identify the individual who left those fingerprints without me involved, either on your own or with an assisting team chosen by you? To further remove your objection that you do not wish to assist me as a reason not to have science done, I am willing to make no comment on the topic either directly or via intermediary for a reasonable period during which you undertook the initiative and then continuing for six months after results were announced, before offering any comment on the results. This is not about me but about getting science done for its own sake and for future generations.

Don’t make your response as if this is an issue of assisting me. It is not. It is about getting science done relevant to the Tippit case of which you are the world’s leading authority.

Please, reconsider? Think of the science. You’ve done so much on the Tippit case, this would be one more. A better understanding of how those fingerprints got there, from whom, and why. Wouldn’t you like to know that? Don’t you have just a little bit of curiosity about that yourself? What’s not to like about going further in 2022 from what you did in 1994?

Greg D.

On Aug 17, 2022 Myers responded with opening words, “Good lord, man. What part of ‘no,’ do you not understand?”

He again objected to my continuing to cc Hoch, Parnell, and Roe. He continued, as in his first reply, with impugning of motives and projection.

As I suspected, you are apparently more interested in posturing than this “science” you claim you are after.

For instance, you wrote: “…To further remove your objection that you do not wish to assist me as a reason not to have science done…”

I never said anything of the kind. I wrote: “I don’t have any more interest now than I did then (09/09/2021) in assisting you in vetting your opinions and commentary on the Tippit shooting.” (emphasis added for your benefit)

Got it? I doubt it. Unfortunately, you have a propensity to “spin” all kinds of things regarding the Tippit case, including, it seems, things I write.

BTW, what makes you think I have not considered all of this back in 1994? This may shock you, but I don’t publish or post all of my thoughts and activities regarding my research.

I suspect you’ll now add that comment to your spin-yarn about what I think and what I’ve done (or not done) and why I’ve done it. Yes?

And that’s all this is, isn’t it? A fishing expedition to get me to make comments about your work and the direction it’s taking?

Look, you don’t need *me* to do anything. I managed to do all kinds of things over the last 25-years (all at my own expense and using my own time). I believe you are resourceful enough to spend your own time and money to validate your own beliefs about the Tippit case. Right?

You already know where I stand. In fact, as you tell it, I’ve provided you with a valuable head-start: “With Malice.”

Good luck in your search for truth.

That slammed the door shut on any hope of cooperation or interest from Myers in getting new expert analysis of the fingerprints done.

Myers is right on the next to last paragraph: he has provided all who study the Tippit case with a valuable head start with research done and published. That is true.

Where it stands now

There is a very good chance that identification of the Tippit patrol car fingerprints using current forensic methods would yield the name of the gunman who killed Tippit. 

Finding that out would be vastly preferable to more years of endless speculation concerning the identity of the fingerprints and the killer. I have some idea that in the best case the right law enforcement person today could run those Tippit patrol car bumper prints and come up with a name in ten minutes. Maybe I have that wrong. But there is no record in all these years that anyone in a position to run a check on those prints has taken ten minutes to try.

Again, in 1994 Oswald was excluded, by an experienced latent fingerprint examiner, as the one who left those prints. Furthermore, that experienced latent fingerprint examiner found that a single individual left the prints in both locations, as opposed to different or multiple individuals, thus tightening the odds that those fingerprints were from the killer.

The only way to show that 1994 information concerning the Tippit patrol car fingerprints does not call into significant question Oswald’s guilt would be if those prints were identified and the identification shown to be someone innocuous, such as Pat Speer’s gas station attendant or whatever.

But that first requires obtaining an identification of the fingerprints, before such an identification can be shown innocuous (i.e. an innocent explanation for that person having his or her fingerprints at those two positions unrelated to being the killer of Tippit), if so.

As it stands, on the basis of present information (and ignorance), those fingerprints look very much like they may be from the killer, which if true means Oswald did not kill Tippit.

It is likely there is sufficient fingerprint material in what was lifted from the right front bumper for a positive identification given today’s databases and software programs. If, however, that is still technically not possible for whatever reason, those prints could still be examined, case by case, to check for match versus non-match for any individual suspect for whom fingerprints exist, such as was done for Oswald in 1994 (result: non-match), and could be done for Curtis Craford (who should have prints somewhere on file since he had both service in the US Army and an arrest record in Oregon).

The only way to find out is to find out.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Pete Mellor]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

The only way to find out is to find out.

So, any movement on this Greg?

I will confess to you that when you originally posted your Craford piece on the fingerprints on Tippit's car, I contacted a researcher/author on the JFKA case, (who shall remain nameless) on your behalf, to see if there was interest in assisting you in this quest.  Sadly, a couple months on & no reply to my e-mail.  O.K. if you ever discover the prints belong to Craford, or for that matter Oswald, that would be a momentous discovery!  However, if the prints cannot be linked to any known set on record that would lean over to Oswald's innocence.

All in all, keep on trucking with your astute investigation.  

[Tom Gram]

Myers is obviously afraid that an identification of the fingerprints would make him look like an idiot. I'm particularly interested in his comment from your email exchange: 

BTW, what makes you think I have not considered all of this back in 1994? This may shock you, but I don’t publish or post all of my thoughts and activities regarding my research.

Did Myers deliberately conceal evidence that didn't support his conclusion that Oswald did it? At the very least, it sure looks like he considered trying to obtain an identification of the prints in 1994 and chose not to because he was scared of what he'd find. 

Also, forgive my ignorance, but where are the prints now? Are high-quality copies available to the public? What steps would need to happen for the prints to be run through a database? 

[Greg Doudna]

57 minutes ago, Pete Mellor said:

So, any movement on this Greg?

I will confess to you that when you originally posted your Craford piece on the fingerprints on Tippit's car, I contacted a researcher/author on the JFKA case, (who shall remain nameless) on your behalf, to see if there was interest in assisting you in this quest.  Sadly, a couple months on & no reply to my e-mail.  O.K. if you ever discover the prints belong to Craford, or for that matter Oswald, that would be a momentous discovery!  However, if the prints cannot be linked to any known set on record that would lean over to Oswald's innocence.

All in all, keep on trucking with your astute investigation.  

Thanks for your behind-the-scenes effort Pete. No, no movement known to me. 

[Greg Doudna]

14 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Myers is obviously afraid that an identification of the fingerprints would make him look like an idiot. I'm particularly interested in his comment from your email exchange: 

BTW, what makes you think I have not considered all of this back in 1994? This may shock you, but I don’t publish or post all of my thoughts and activities regarding my research.

Did Myers deliberately conceal evidence that didn't support his conclusion that Oswald did it? At the very least, it sure looks like he considered trying to obtain an identification of the prints in 1994 and chose not to because he was scared of what he'd find. 

Also, forgive my ignorance, but where are the prints now? Are high-quality copies available to the public? What steps would need to happen for the prints to be run through a database? 

I do not know what Myers' comment refers to. Pat Speer earlier suggested Myers could have made an attempt to identify the fingerprints that failed to have tangible outcome at that time in 1994 (and not reported that failed attempt). There is no evidence Myers covered up information exculpatory to Oswald and therefore I do not think that should be accused or suggested in the absence of evidence or cause, for which there is not any. If anything, Myers' reporting of the Lutz finding of a non-match of Oswald to the fingerprints could argue in favor of Myers' honesty, since that finding of Lutz could be argued to go against interest. I have wondered (nothing to do with Myers) if the Dallas Police crime lab in Nov 1963 did a comparison of the Tippit patrol car fingerprints to Oswald's fingerprints--that would be the obvious first thing they would check--and maybe did find the prints from the right front bumper did not match to Oswald but called that a smeared print for which nothing could be learned. There is no way of knowing or verifying that, but the basis for my suspicion on that is Myers' account of how easily experienced latent fingerprint examiner Lutz in 1994 found within one minute that the bumper fingerprints did not match to Oswald's. If Lutz in 1994 had no problem in easily seeing that non-match, is it really true that nobody in the Dallas Police crime lab in 1963 working from the same information could see the same thing? But to report that would not be helpful to making the case against Oswald, so was reported to the Warren Commission as "several smear prints. None of value", full stop, end of that? But I do not know. 

I assume the originals of the Tippit patrol car fingerprints would still be with the Dallas Police Department today. Myers published enlarged photographs of the prints in With Malice and perhaps they would be online (in Dallas Police archives online?). I do not know how local or state police or federal agents run fingerprint checks through nationwide databases or what steps are needed to do that.

[Guest]

On 8/30/2022 at 12:52 AM, Greg Doudna said:

I assume the originals of the Tippit patrol car fingerprints would still be with the Dallas Police Department today. Myers published enlarged photographs of the prints in With Malice and perhaps they would be online (in Dallas Police archives online?). I do not know how local or state police or federal agents run fingerprint checks through nationwide databases or what steps are needed to do that.

If this is what you are looking for, there are good life-size prints available online (The Portal to Texan History)

I'm just posting down sized ones here below because of the limit to my total attachments-size

https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JFKDP/  just type Tippit in the search field

 

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans
Pictures removed to save space

[Guest]

I know nothing about fingerprint, but if these are not good prints I don't know what good prints are 😄

In those files are also a BUNCH of Oswalds prints (full size handprints, you name it, the works....)

Edited August 30, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Greg Doudna]

18 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

I know nothing about fingerprint, but if these are not good prints I don't what good prints are 😄

In those files are also a BUNCH of Oswalds prints (full size handprints, you name it, the works....)

Thank you Jean Paul! I agree, I too have no expertise in fingerprints but just as a dumb layman would need explanation on why those right front fender prints are not good prints--how the Dallas Police crime lab could describe them as "none of value"! How could they not have known those did not match to Oswald?

Edited August 30, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Bill Brown]

Since the prints on the hood do not belong to the suspect, they're of no value because they don't prove a thing, one way or the other.  The prints could be from anyone at any recent point in time and therefore, meaningless.

[Greg Doudna]

7 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Since the prints on the hood do not belong to the suspect, they're of no value because they don't prove a thing, one way or the other.  The prints could be from anyone at any recent point in time and therefore, meaningless.

Bill, this is an astonishing ex cathedra statement of knowledge you are asserting before which I am humbled--you KNOW "the prints on the hood do not belong to the suspect"! Not, "it is not proven that they were" or "they might have been left by someone else". No, nothing so conservative or cautious for you, nothing so wimpy. You just put it right out there in dogmatic certainty: you know that. 

You don't dispute the gunman was standing at exactly that position next to the patrol car.

Do you have a secret video of all the second the gunman was there showing conclusively the gunman did not put those fingerprints there? That the gunman never rested a hand on the bumper for balance? Never ducked down a little? Did not stumble? Did not reach down to the ground for some reason?

You know these things! Such claim to knowledge!!! What is your secret source for this knowledge? Extrasensory perception? Magical thinking (if I close my eyes and insist real hard that will make it so)?

Are you saying you see no benefit in pursuing an identification of the individual who left those fingerprints? If it were up to you, would you run a check that could produce a name? Just curious. Are you in a position in which you could assist in getting such a check done? (Might as well ask.)

Are your responses to these questions affected by your belief that the case is solved (Oswald did it)? Be honest?

If--hypothetically--the prrints were to turn up a match to Curtis Craford--just hypothetically--would you still claim that wouid be "meaningless"? Really?

[Bill Brown]

3 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bill, this is an astonishing ex cathedra statement of knowledge you are asserting before which I am humbled--you KNOW "the prints on the hood do not belong to the suspect"! Not, "it is not proven that they were" or "they might have been left by someone else". No, nothing so conservative or cautious for you, nothing so wimpy. You just put it right out there in dogmatic certainty: you know that. 

You don't dispute the gunman was standing at exactly that position next to the patrol car.

Do you have a secret video of all the second the gunman was there showing conclusively the gunman did not put those fingerprints there? That the gunman never rested a hand on the bumper for balance? Never ducked down a little? Did not stumble? Did not reach down to the ground for some reason?

You know these things! Such claim to knowledge!!! What is your secret source for this knowledge? Extrasensory perception? Magical thinking (if I close my eyes and insist real hard that will make it so)?

Are you saying you see no benefit in pursuing an identification of the individual who left those fingerprints? If it were up to you, would you run a check that could produce a name? Just curious. Are you in a position in which you could assist in getting such a check done? (Might as well ask.)

Are your responses to these questions affected by your belief that the case is solved (Oswald did it)? Be honest?

If--hypothetically--the prrints were to turn up a match to Curtis Craford--just hypothetically--would you still claim that wouid be "meaningless"? Really?

Perhaps you should read my post again.

 

I said the prints didn't belong to the suspect.

 

Oswald was the suspect.

 

Slow down, Greg.

 

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Perhaps you should read my post again.

I said the prints didn't belong to the suspect.

Oswald was the suspect.

Slow down, Greg.

Of course the prints do not match to that particular suspect. That has been known ever since Myers published that finding of Lutz in 1998. If that is all you were meaning to say that is trivial. That non-match is what one would expect if a suspect is innocent. How do you go from that to "no value" and "meaningless" in the Tippit case?

Since the prints could be from the gunman, identification of the prints has the potential to exonerate any suspect in the Tippit killing who is not the identification of those prints, if that identification goes to someone for whom it can be excluded contact with the Tippit cruiser has an innocent explanation.

[Bill Brown]

15 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Of course the prints do not match to that particular suspect. That has been known ever since Myers published that finding of Lutz in 1998. If that is all you were meaning to say that is trivial. That non-match is what one would expect if a suspect is innocent. How do you go from that to "no value" and "meaningless" in the Tippit case?

Since the prints could be from the gunman, identification of the prints has the potential to exonerate any suspect in the Tippit killing who is not the identification of those prints, if that identification goes to someone for whom it can be excluded contact with the Tippit cruiser has an innocent explanation.

Correct.  The prints do not match the suspect; exactly as I said.  Right?

 

Look Greg.  Real simple...

 

The crime scene was not closed off right away.  A crowd gathered.  How do you know the prints do not belong to any of those bystanders?  How do you know the prints do not belong to Tippit himself?  How do you know the prints do not belong to a suspect who was told to place his hands on the car in order to be frisked in any one of the previous days leading up to 11/22/63?  How long do prints last on sheet metal?  Is it a given that rain washes away prints?

 

But, here is the big question...

 

Why are you automatically assuming that the prints belong to whoever shot Tippit?

 

[Bill Brown]

And while I'm at it...

 

Greg...

 

Did you ask Myers for permission before posting your private exchanges with him?

[Greg Doudna]

47 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Correct.  The prints do not match the suspect; exactly as I said.  Right?

Look Greg.  Real simple...

The crime scene was not closed off right away.  A crowd gathered.  How do you know the prints do not belong to any of those bystanders?  How do you know the prints do not belong to Tippit himself?  How do you know the prints do not belong to a suspect who was told to place his hands on the car in order to be frisked in any one of the previous days leading up to 11/22/63?  How long do prints last on sheet metal?  Is it a given that rain washes away prints?

But, here is the big question...

Why are you automatically assuming that the prints belong to whoever shot Tippit?

No, the question is why are you automatically assuming that the prints do not belong to whoever shot Tippit. 

I agree the possibilities you name are possible. Getting a name for those prints would go a long way toward finding out. Do you agree?

Look, you have a murder and you have fingerprints from a single individual prominently in the very positions the murderer was seen. It should be a no-brainer to get an identification on those prints, provided that is not impossible.

I am convinced, unless it is credibly explained to me otherwise, that the Dallas Police Department was not being honest in saying that the prints on the right front fender were incapable of excluding a match with Oswald (which I am certain they checked). Lutz in 1994 did it easily upon sight in less than a minute. That apparent dishonesty on the part of DPD in 1963 on this matter necessarily suggests it may have been possible all along, from day one in 1963, to get a positive identification match on those fingerprints if there were databases at that time to check, which I believe there probably were. If the Dallas Police were capable of intentionally disappearing a possible murder weapon used in the Tippit killing, found likely abandoned by the killer hours after the Tippit killing, was there also a failure to pursue an identification of the fingerprints, or a coverup if such an identification had been pursued and the results not to the liking? We already (almost) know that the DPD was not being entirely forthcoming on the usability of those prints in the way that Lutz was easily able to do in 1994.