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

[Greg Doudna]

59 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

And while I'm at it...

Greg...

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

I quoted excerpts, not full emails with metadata, of an exchange for which there were cc's, in what I considered fair use. Myers has misrepresented me publicly on his blog, misrepresented me in his response to my (genuine) attempt to invite him to cooperate in attempting to obtain a fingerprint identification, and I want it to be clear to what happened. 

[Bill Brown]

On 9/1/2022 at 12:59 PM, Greg Doudna said:

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. 

You're not getting it.  Since the prints were not complete, then they are of no value.

 

The prints could do only one of two things.  One, they were complete enough to be linked to a person.  Two, they were incomplete and could not be linked to any person (but could rule out someone).

 

They are of no value because...

 

If it is shown that they do not belong to Oswald, then that still doesn't rule out the idea that Oswald was the killer and simply did not touch the patrol car.  The prints do not need to be a full print in order to rule someone out.

 

However, they do need to be complete enough (12 points of match) in order to state that the prints do indeed belong to a particular person.  The prints lifted by Barnes weren't complete enough to give 12 points of match (but were complete enough to rule out a person, since less points are needed to rule out a suspect than to match a suspect).

 

Face it, as Barnes testified to, the prints were of no value and now you (should) know why.

 

Greg, if you were to track down Crafard's prints, Barnes (basically) tells you that there would not be enough matches between the prints he lifted from the car and the prints of Crafard because the prints lifted were only partial.  You would be left with one of two conclusions.  One, the prints do not belong to Crafard because enough non-matching points would be available to rule out Crafard.  Two, the prints could possibly belong to Crafard but there would not be enough matching points to state as a fact that they are Crafard's prints.  Therefore, even if you had Crafard's prints, the prints lifted from the patrol car would be of no value.

 

This isn't rocket science.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

23 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I quoted excerpts, not full emails with metadata, of an exchange for which there were cc's, in what I considered fair use. Myers has misrepresented me publicly on his blog, misrepresented me in his response to my (genuine) attempt to invite him to cooperate in attempting to obtain a fingerprint identification, and I want it to be clear to what happened. 

So that's a No, you did not ask for permission from Myers before posting your private exchanges.

[Paul Jolliffe]

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

You're not getting it.  Since the prints were not complete, then they are of no value.

 

The prints could do only one of two things.  One, they were complete enough to be linked to a person.  Two, they incomplete and could not be linked to any person (but could rule out someone).

 

They are of no value because...

 

If it is shown that they do not belong to Oswald, then that still doesn't rule out the idea that Oswald was the killer and simply did not touch the patrol car.  The prints do not need to be a full print in order to rule someone out.

 

However, they do need to be complete enough (12 points of match) in order to state that the prints do indeed belong to a particular person.  The prints lifted by Barnes weren't complete enough to give 12 points of match (but were complete enough to rule out a person, since less points are needed to rule out a suspect than to match a suspect).

 

Face it, as Barnes testified to, the prints were of no value and now you (should) know why.

 

Greg, if you were to track down Crafard's prints, Barnes (basically) tells you that there would not be enough matches between the prints he lifted from the car and the prints of Crafard because the prints lifted were only partial.  You would be left with one of two conclusions.  One, the prints do not belong to Crafard because enough non-matching points would be available to rule out Crafard.  Two, the prints could possibly belong to Crafard but there would not be enough matching points to state as a fact that they are Crafard's prints.  Therefore, even if you had Crafard's prints, the prints lifted from the patrol car would be of no value.

 

This isn't rocket science.

 

 

 

 

Isn't the $64,000 question whether today's fingerprint technology CAN make a match?

We all agree that the DPD claimed in 1963 that they didn't have enough to make a match, and maybe that was true then. Or, as Greg has suggested, maybe it wasn't even true then.

But what is indisputable is that by 1994, it was possible to rule out "Oswald" as the one responsible for the most suspicious prints on Tippit's car. 

We all agree that these prints might have been left by an innocent bystander. And it may be that even with today's technology, not enough was recovered in 1963 to make a 12 point match today.

BUT . . . 

Maybe these prints with today's technology CAN make a match with a suspect. If so, a very important lead might open up. 

The real possibility, no matter how slight, that these prints  in 2022 may yet lead to a suspect means an effort should be made. 

And that is something that no reasonable person should disagree. 

[Bill Brown]

16 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Isn't the $64,000 question whether today's fingerprint technology CAN make a match?

We all agree that the DPD claimed in 1963 that they didn't have enough to make a match, and maybe that was true then. Or, as Greg has suggested, maybe it wasn't even true then.

But what is indisputable is that by 1994, it was possible to rule out "Oswald" as the one responsible for the most suspicious prints on Tippit's car. 

We all agree that these prints might have been left by an innocent bystander. And it may be that even with today's technology, not enough was recovered in 1963 to make a 12 point match today.

BUT . . . 

Maybe these prints with today's technology CAN make a match with a suspect. If so, a very important lead might open up. 

The real possibility, no matter how slight, that these prints  in 2022 may yet lead to a suspect means an effort should be made. 

And that is something that no reasonable person should disagree. 

 

You calling the prints suspicious doesn't make them suspicious.

 

[Greg Doudna]

22 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

You're not getting it.  Since the prints were not complete, then they are of no value.The prints could do only one of two things.  One, they were complete enough to be linked to a person.  Two, they incomplete and could not be linked to any person (but could rule out someone).

They are of no value because...

If it is shown that they do not belong to Oswald, then that still doesn't rule out the idea that Oswald was the killer and simply did not touch the patrol car.  The prints do not need to be a full print in order to rule someone out.

However, they do need to be complete enough (12 points of match) in order to state that the prints do indeed belong to a particular person.  The prints lifted by Barnes weren't complete enough to give 12 points of match (but were complete enough to rule out a person, since less points are needed to rule out a suspect than to match a suspect).

Face it, as Barnes testified to, the prints were of no value and now you (should) know why.

Greg, if you were to track down Crafard's prints, Barnes (basically) tells you that there would not be enough matches between the prints he lifted from the car and the prints of Crafard because the prints lifted were only partial.  You would be left with one of two conclusions.  One, the prints do not belong to Crafard because enough non-matching points would be available to rule out Crafard.  Two, the prints could possibly belong to Crafard but there would not be enough matching points to state as a fact that they are Crafard's prints.  Therefore, even if you had Crafard's prints, the prints lifted from the patrol car would be of no value.

This isn't rocket science.

Sorry, not good enough. That Barnes said the prints were too smeared to be of value is not at issue. But his statement is impeached on its face by failure to disclose that the prints were capable of excluding a match of those fingerprints to Oswald, a material omission if known, and if it wasn’t known also impeaches the credibility of the claim. The issue is whether that claim in 1964 of those prints being of "no value" was true then and now. Think: how do you suppose that was determined in 1963? Is there any testimony, any paper or written record, of an examination of those prints? No. 

Did someone in the DPD crime lab take an eyeball look at the fender prints and could tell just by looking that there was no point in even trying to run any match or comparison for a positive identification, no point in even looking at any suspect's prints for comparison then or ever in the future, because they were obviously smeared too badly to yield a valid positive identification?

They certainly don't all look smeared in the photos. Barnes made that statement in his Warren Commission testimony at a time when nobody could see the fender prints (they are not in the WC exhibits). After the photos were published, has any experienced latent fingerprint examiner stated “no value” for any conceivable positive identification? No. 

Sorry, unless there is more recent expert testimony, I'm afraid that 1964 DPD claim alone is not good enough. I will defer to those with expertise on this matter. But that is the point: there is no known corroboration from expertise for that 1964 DPD claim that those fender prints are of "no value".