Jump to content
The Education Forum

Just today, upon the stair, I met a man who wasnt there.


Guest Stephen Turner
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Stephen Turner

How is it possible for Oswald to have handled the Carcano, yet only leave. 1,A partial print near the trigger guard, that the FBI claimed was useless for identification purposes, and 2,A palm print, found on the bottom of the metal barrel- accessible only when the wooden stock was removed- and described by Lt Carl Day as an old print-"This print had been on the gun for several weeks, or even months."- It appears to me that there are three possibilities.

1, Oswald wiped the gun after firing.

2, He wore gloves.

Oswald was not the assassin.

1,He wiped the gun The one insurmountable problem with this scenario is simply time. According to the W/C Oswald had a maximum of 90 seconds after the shots to get to the lunchroom ahead of his confrontation with Baker, and Truly( many independant researchers claime he had significantly less time than this, but we will let it go.) To wipe a rifle so clean as to remove virtually all traces of fingerprints takes time, if it is not done throughly you risk leaving lots of recognisable partial prints,or simply smudging them. so this version has Oswald firing three shots, carefully wiping down the carcano,hiding it, leaving the sixth floor, racing down four flights of stairs, entering the lunchroom and purchasing a fizzy drink, in an absolute maximun of 90 seconds, and, according to Baker he was neither flushed, or out of breath.

He wore gloves. Two problems present themselves, this supposes Oswald wiped the gun clean before the assassination, if so why are there ANY prints present on the gun at all. And more problematic, where are the gloves, neither Frazer, or any other witness see's Oswald with gloves, non are found in the Depository, the Bus, Taxi, rooming house or theatre, nobody see's Oswald dispose of the gloves on his travels, nor are any found.

The fact is that nobody can place Oswald on the Sixth floor at the time of the assassination, or for a full half hour before it, both times he is seen, Mrs Arnold at approx 12-15, and patrolman Baker 90 seconds after the shooting he is in the staff lunchroom..Which brings us to...

Oswald was not the shooter. Which is where we came in.. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it possible for Oswald to have handled the Carcano, yet only leave. 1,A partial print near the trigger guard, that the FBI claimed was useless for identification purposes, and 2,A palm print, found on the bottom of the metal barrel- accessible only when the wooden stock was removed- and described by Lt Carl Day as an old print-"This print had been on the gun for several weeks, or even months."- It appears to me that there are three possibilities.

1, Oswald wiped the gun after firing.

2, He wore gloves.

Oswald was not the assassin.

Oswald was not the shooter. Which is where we came in.. :D

Of course he was not. Even the slightest amount of study of this case shows he was exactly what he said of himself : " a patsy".

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

I have just recieved an Email from Gary Mack, Gary states.

"Stephen, you have left out the obvious-and stated at the time-explanation. Day said ( and still does) that the wood, and metal were far too rough to take, and hold a print. So far, no qualified experts have disagreed with his observation."

Except for the palm print found on the underside of the metal barrel?

Anyone care to comment on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just recieved an Email from Gary Mack, Gary states.

"Stephen, you have left out the obvious-and stated at the time-explanation. Day said ( and still does) that the wood, and metal were far too rough to take, and hold a print. So far, no qualified experts have disagreed with his observation."

Except for the palm print found on the underside of the metal barrel?

Anyone care to comment on this.

Stephen, FWIW. In 2003 Jay Harrison a Texas researcher with excellent qualifications and many contacts with the Dallas Police Departmen and also a previous DPD reserve officer in 1963, who knew some of the officers who had loged the evidence at the time of the shooting, stated to many people before his death that the DPD had evidence that the FBI as well as the DPD had taken fingerprints from the weapon and the prints taken did not match Oswald. A print was found under the berrel. Officer and detectives were told by the FBI that the gun's wood stock was to rough to get prints. The DPD said they had taken prints but any record of this is lost.

Point Two: FWIW

In 2004 the DPD historical committee was going through the basement of one of their buildings which had a water leak some years ago. In the process of a limited clean up, they located, behind one of the many file cases when moved, a folder with notes and pictures and an old fingerprint card. It was said at the time within the folder was notes and evidence taken from the snipers nest. It was said that this card had two sets of fingerprints which, as Jay Harrison and others claimed, belong to Malcom Wallace. This was after work had been done on another set of prints claimed to be Wallace's (palm and little finger print taken from boxes in the snipers nest) which was said to belong to Wallace. Oswald's prints were not on this card as the notations stated.

The notes in the folder made reference to prints being taken from the gun and given to the Dallas FBI. These prints were said not to belong to Oswald, except the one under the stock on the metal portion of the gun. This information along with other evidence was sent to the FBI crime lab sometime in 1964. As yet no word or follow up on this lab report has been completed or made public. The two officers involved who received and signed for this evidence, which was received from the hired clean up people, are no longer available and their names were blocked out on the notes. The two officers with the DPD are also no longer with the DPD ( one retired, the other took a job with the FBI) Jay Harrison did locate one of these officers and obtain a sworn statement.

The Dallas Police Department (2004) had no comment on this information which Jay Harrison and others had received. Two metal boxes were also removed from this flooded basement and turned over to the FBI to be sent to the crime lab for study. No word as to what they found, if anything, has been reported. The information above is in "sworn statements" from two of the DPD officers who claimed the above to be true and correct. One copy of this document was sent to the Dallas PD and the orginal remained in Jay Harrison's files and hopefuly remains there today. Jay Harrison's files were much bigger and more complete that Mary Ferrels (?) files and much of her information came from Harrison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='William Plumlee' date='Sep 21 2006, 06:24 PM' post='75447']

I have just recieved an Email from Gary Mack, Gary states.

"Stephen, you have left out the obvious-and stated at the time-explanation. Day said ( and still does) that the wood, and metal were far too rough to take, and hold a print. So far, no qualified experts have disagreed with his observation."

Except for the palm print found on the underside of the metal barrel?

Anyone care to comment on this.

Stephen, FWIW. In 2003 Jay Harrison a Texas researcher with excellent qualifications and many contacts with the Dallas Police Departmen and also a previous DPD reserve officer in 1963, who knew some of the officers who had loged the evidence at the time of the shooting, stated to many people before his death that the DPD had evidence that the FBI as well as the DPD had taken fingerprints from the weapon and the prints taken did not match Oswald. A print was found under the berrel. Officer and detectives were told by the FBI that the gun's wood stock was to rough to get prints. The DPD said they had taken prints but any record of this is lost.

Point Two: FWIW

In 2004 the DPD historical committee was going through the basement of one of their buildings which had a water leak some years ago. In the process of a limited clean up, they located, behind one of the many file cases when moved, a folder with notes and pictures and an old fingerprint card. It was said at the time within the folder was notes and evidence taken from the snipers nest. It was said that this card had two sets of fingerprints which, as Jay Harrison and others claimed, belong to Malcom Wallace. This was after work had been done on another set of prints claimed to be Wallace's (palm and little finger print taken from boxes in the snipers nest) which was said to belong to Wallace. Oswald's prints were not on this card as the notations stated.

The notes in the folder made reference to prints being taken from the gun and given to the Dallas FBI. These prints were said not to belong to Oswald, except the one under the stock on the metal portion of the gun. This information along with other evidence was sent to the FBI crime lab sometime in 1964. As yet no word or follow up on this lab report has been completed or made public. The two officers involved who received and signed for this evidence, which was received from the hired clean up people, are no longer available and their names were blocked out on the notes. The two officers with the DPD are also no longer with the DPD ( one retired, the other took a job with the FBI) Jay Harrison did locate one of these officers and obtain a sworn statement.

The Dallas Police Department (2004) had no comment on this information which Jay Harrison and others had received. Two metal boxes were also removed from this flooded basement and turned over to the FBI to be sent to the crime lab for study. No word as to what they found, if anything, has been reported. The information above is in "sworn statements" from two of the DPD officers who claimed the above to be true and correct. One copy of this document was sent to the Dallas PD and the orginal remained in Jay Harrison's files and hopefuly remains there today. Jay Harrison's files were much bigger and more complete that Mary Ferrels (?) files and much of her information came from Harrison.

This effort was one of J's life's work. His work was left to Walt Brwon...hopefully this record will continue.

I can attest to the fact that the files J left were comparable to those of Mary Ferrell. Hers brought in wads of cash.

.J's? If the record is preserved, history will be the judge of the value.

Thanx Tosh for keeping this issue alive. The clues left behind on the 6th floor are there for

eternity. Fingerprint evidence remains extremely conclusive.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, in response to Tosh's post of Gary Mack's remark...

It seems that this is something that would be easy enough to test, any

number of JFK researchers have M-C rifles....Ian has one I know, Craig

Roberts has one, some of the folks on the Lancer forum have them.

Seems like it would be easy enough to handle the weapon or even for those

in the US to wipe it down, fire three rounds and then take a look for prints.

Very possibly some may even have the connections to get a local PD

department to run a print test.

For myself I can imagine how a wood stock might not take prints but I've

handled a lot of rifles and the concept of one having metal parts that were

too rough to take prints sort of escapes me. All the metal parts are

machined.

And not to forget, Oswald supposedly dissembled the rifle and reassembled it so

perhaps that should be part of the test.....its not like he just picked it up

by the stock off counter and whipped off three shots. He took it apart, put

it together, carried it into the window area, fired three shots, and then carried

it quite a ways and hid it....officially that is...

And on a side note...let's see, Oswald's hands were supposedly so sweaty he was

leaving identifiable prints on cardboard boxes....prints on cardboard boxes but not

on the metal trigger guard of the rifle...hmmm....

No reason to speculate though, should be easy enough to test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Stephen, in response to Tosh's post of Gary Mack's remark...

It seems that this is something that would be easy enough to test, any

number of JFK researchers have M-C rifles....Ian has one I know, Craig

Roberts has one, some of the folks on the Lancer forum have them.

No reason to speculate though, should be easy enough to test.

Larry, what a cracking idea, I believe that Tom Purvis also owns an M/C, By Ian do you mean Ian Griggs? As a fellow British researcher we are in regular contact, if so I will ask him, if he doesn't mind, to carry out the test.

Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Peter Lemkin' date='Sep 22 2006, 08:37 AM' post='75510']

I'm of the opinion that LHO 'handled' that gun only after his death...thus explaining the partial print, perhaps.

Peter:

I agree 100%.

Tosh: I will go thru my J Harrison records and see what I come up with

and email you or post, or both. I know it came up in conversation, just don't know

what sort of record I made, if any... What I mostly remember is that by the time you

brought this up with me J was so very ill most of our daily conversations were about that

and the past.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...