From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Marina Oswald gets into the act
Date: 29 Sep 1992 03:31:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) says:

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

The rifle was brought back to Dallas after being taken to Washington by
the FBI. Why? The FBI had taken charge of the investigation by that time.
What was their reason for the weapon to be in Dallas?
The mortician who prepared Oswald's body for burial said he had to clean
ink off Oswald's hands. Why? He had already been fingerprinted by the police.
The mortician also said the FBI agents were carrying large cases or
packages.

Sorry I don't remember the sources for these details, but I'm sure they're
locatable. I don't think Stone's view of this episode is all that goofy
under the circumstances.


>
>>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
>>===============================================================================
>
-- 
"In universities, it is forbidden     |  "Personally, my politics are so far
to teach nonsense. But the _history_  |  to the right, I consider Paul Revere
of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"   |  to be a pinko."
               -- Saul Lieberman      |                 -- Tom Grundner
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3426 alt.conspiracy:11005 sci.skeptic:17543 talk.rumors:1076