From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Marina Oswald gets into the act
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:37:15 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:

>>schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>>>There are just too many instances of changing evidence in this case
>>>for my taste. 

>>>Palmprints appear on rifles out of thin air.

>>I totally agree with your general sentiment, but I think the palmprint
>>is genuine. Here's why:

>>The palmprint is on a part of the rifle that can only be grasped while the
>>gun is disassembled. If someone wanted to plant a print, they would plant
>>a print that suggested Oswald fired the rifle -- a print where someone
>>holding a rifle in firing position would be.

>>But this print -- the only print found on the gun after a whole lot of
>>searching -- is in a place that only shows that Oswald handled the rifle
>>while disassembled. Since I don't dispute that Oswald owned the rifle, I
>>am not surprised to find his print there.

>[...]

>>To me, the fact that the palmprint was lifted where it was lifted even
>>though no other prints could be found is just further evidence that Oswald
>>never fired the rifle. Someone fired the rifle, but their prints were not
>>left behind.

>It's not the location of the print that bothers me. Its the timing.

>Lt Day of the Dallas Police checked the rifle for prints. He found
>several partial and smudged prints on the rifle. He photographed and
>covered each one with cellophane for protection.

Are these photographs extant?
Were the prints *completely* unreadable or what? How partial is partial?

>The rifle was then sent to the FBI.

>The FBI found *no* palmprint matching Oswalds.

>The rifle was sent back to Dallas.

>It was only after getting the rifle back that the Dallas Police
>announced they had *lifted* a print off the barrel [under the stock]

>Oswald was dead by then, and his hands could have been used to place
>the palmprint on the rifle. Thats why that scene was in JFK.

It's also why alot of people think Stone is goofy.

>If Day had found the print on the 22nd, why wasn't it photographed and
>protected by cellophane like the other possible prints?

Because it wasn't found on the 22nd, because it wasn't disassembled?

>Magically reappearing palmprints do not prove Oswald had handled the
>rifle. Its just one of the pieces of evidence that appear to have been
>created to stregthen a very circumstantial case against Oswald.

I don't think the print ever re-appeared, and I don't think it adds a whole
lot of credibility to the case either. To strengthen their case, they would
have needed a print that could have been held up as showing Oswald had
held the gun. All they got was prints showing Oswald handled a disassembled
rifle.

You can propose, I suppose, that the rifle was never owned by Oswald. That would
mean believing Marina Oswald is lying about Lee owning the rifle and
conspirators deciding back in April 1963 that they need to order a rifle under
Oswald's alias so they could plant it at the scene of JFK's assassination
seven months later.

But that all gets very silly very fast. I don't doubt Oswald owned the rifle.
If his print was readable off the barrel, why not off the stock, where he
had supposedly gripped the rifle that day?




>-- 
>===============================================================================
>        "We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin -- Split Second

>schuck@sfu.ca                                           Vote No on October 26th
>===============================================================================