Post by Rob Caprio on Mar 16, 2021 14:05:57 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
4.bp.blogspot.com/-W8PYTYaGuJ4/WgjnI3Kr_aI/AAAAAAABNok/QNNHkPM8o7QEaXEhDEIGy5BrIHjNyWFEQCLcBGAs/s1600/CE150-Oswald-Shirt.jpg
Based on this testimony by FBI Expert Paul Stombaugh (hair and fiber expert), how could he find fibers from the shirt worn by Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) on November 22, 1963, AND fibers from the blanket that the rifle was allegedly wrapped in on the alleged murder weapon (CE 139)?
It should be noted right away that LHO said he changed shirts when he went to his rooming house (and this is supported by the FBI) around 1:00 p.m. so this would mean the shirt he was arrested in was NOT the shirt he was wearing at work, but let’s put that aside at this time.
Here is some testimony from Stombaugh that got me thinking.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you made that examination?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. The gun was to be treated for latent fingerprints also, so I wore a pair of white cotton gloves to protect any latents that might be present on the gun. I placed the gun under a low-powered microscope and examined the gun from the end of the barrel to the end of the stock, removing what fibers I could find from crevices adhering to the gun.
I noticed immediately upon receiving the gun that this gun had been dusted for latent fingerprints prior to my receiving it. Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun; it was pretty well dusted off, and at the time I noted to myself that I doubted very much if there would be any fibers adhering to the outside of this gun--I possibly might find some in a crevice some place--because when the latent fingerprint man dusted this gun, apparently in Dallas, they use a little brush to dust with they would have dusted any fibers off the gun at the same time; so this I noted before I ever started to really examine the gun.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were you unhappy at all about that?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I was; however, it is not uncommon for fingerprint processing to be given priority consideration. They wanted to know whether or not the gun contained any fibers to show that it had been stored in this blanket, and with all the obstructions and the crevices on the metal parts of this gun, ordinarily a fiber would adhere pretty well, unless you take a brush and brush it off, and then you brush it on the floor and it is lost.
Mr. EISENBERG. Who was "they," you said "they" wanted to know?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, this is our Dallas office. They sent the gun in wanting to know this fact.
Based on this testimony it seems the rifle was “brushed for prints” and this would knock any fibers on the rifle loose. He even said this, “…with all the obstructions and the crevices on the metal parts of this gun, ordinarily a fiber would adhere pretty well, UNLESS YOU TAKE A BRUSH AND BRUSH IT OFF, and then you brush it on the floor and it is lost.” Despite the rifle being dusted with a brush pretty thoroughly we are asked to believe there were still fibers found on it in the butt plate!
Mr. EISENBERG. Let's get that a little more specific if we can. Can you point to that again?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. In this area, the butt plate of the stock, this is a metal butt plate, you can see the jagged edge on it.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is on the left side of the butt plate?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. It is on the left side; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. In approximately in the middle there is a jagged edge, jagged inside edge, where the butt plate comes into contact with the wood, is that what you are referring to?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; there is a jagged edge there. This area right here, according to my notes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed. These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide, and marked this particular slide "No. 2," because this little group of fibers--little tuft of fibers, appeared to be fresh.
The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old.
You can look at a fiber and tell whether it has been beaten around or exposed much. These appeared to be fairly fresh.
Notice how he said the remaining fibers on the gun that managed to survive the brushing were either adhering to a “greasy, oily deposit” or jammed into a crevice and were dirty and apparently very old. I have to ask again, if the gun was this OILY why was NO oil found on the alleged bag it was carried in earlier in the morning of November 22, 1963? We are asked to believe that the person dusting this rifle with a brush did NOT knock the fibers off the butt plate so they could be found by Stombaugh when he had said it was customary for the fibers to be knocked loose. Is this just another coincidence? These few fresh fibers were linked to the blanket the rifle was allegedly wrapped in, but Stombaugh said all other fibers were older and could have been there for some time.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, returning once more to this question of freshness. Would you say they had been placed there within 1 hour, or 1 day, or 1 week of the time when you received the rifle or longer?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I couldn't say in that regard to any period of time. I refer, by saying they appeared fresh, to the fact that the other fibers I removed from this gun were greasy, mashed, and broken, where these were fairly good long fibers. They were not dirty, with the exception of a little bit of fingerprint powder on them which I cleaned off, and the color was good. They were in good shape, not fragmented. They could conceivably have been put on 10 years ago and then the gun put aside and remain the same. Dust would have settled on them, would have changed their color a little bit, but as far as when they got on the gun, I wouldn't be able to say. This would just be speculation on my part.
This shows the "fresh" fibers could have been put on the rifle a month before or more since he could NOT say they were put there that day as the WC wanted. This again shows the WC had NO evidence for their claims.
Only one set of fibers that were of value were found, and he would say this later on regarding what they were from in his opinion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any further information you would like to give us concerning your examinations of the paper bag, the rifle, the blanket, or the shirt which we have discussed this morning?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Just the fibers I removed.
Mr. DULLES. Are you going to go into the relationship of the fibers that were found in the jagged edge?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Mr. Stombaugh, did you attempt to determine the origin of the fibers which were caught in the butt plate of the rifle?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I did. I tried to match these fibers with the fibers in the blanket, and found that they had not originated from the blanket, because the cotton fibers were of entirely different colors. So I happened to think of the shirt and I made a known sample of the shirt fibers.
Mr. EISENBERG. What does that mean?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I removed fibers from the shirt to determine the composition of it and also the colors. I found that the shirt was composed of dark-blue, grayish-black, and orangish-yellow cotton fibers, and that these were the same shades of fibers I had found on the butt plate of the gun.
Mr. DULLES. Did you find all three shades?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. All three shades; yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. All three shades were found on the fragments that were found in the butt of the gun?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. On the basis of these examinations, did you draw a conclusion as to the probability of the cotton fibers found in the butt plate having come from the shirt pictured in Exhibit 673?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; it was my opinion that these fibers could easily have come from the shirt…. [but] there is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."
CE 673: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0178b.jpg
This shows us the ONLY fresh and valuable fibers found, based on Stombaugh’s testimony, where for the shirt LHO was likely NOT even wearing at the time of the assassination! Is this just another coincidence? Furthermore, this could NOT be proven since he could NOT "positively state" that the fibers came from that shirt to the exclusion of all other similar shirts.
Can any WC defender tell me why the ONLY fresh and valuable fibers found on the alleged murder weapon matched the colors of a shirt LHO was possibly NOT even wearing at the time of the assassination? Furthermore, can you explain why the WC and its defenders claim the fibers found on the gun matched the blanket (CE 140) when there were NO fibers to match according to this testimony? He would even admit that no fibers from the blanket were found on the gun in this testimony.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I asked you a hypothetical question before concerning whether the rifle could have been a mechanism for transferring fibers from the blanket into the paper bag, and as I recall you said it could have. Now, is it inconsistent with that answer that no fibers were found on the gun which matched the fibers in the blanket[/i]?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; because the gun was dusted for fingerprints and any fibers that were loosely adhering to it could have been dusted off.
The only reason, I feel, that these fibers remained on the butt plate is because they were pulled from the fabric by the jagged edge and adhered to the gun and then the fingerprint examiner with his brush, I feel, when brushing and dusting this butt plate, stroked them down into that crevice where they couldn't be knocked off. In time these fibers would have undoubtedly become dislodged and fallen off the gun.
So the ONLY viable fibers found “could have” come from a shirt LHO was NOT wearing at the time of the assassination! But, NO WC defender, can claim blanket fibers were also found on the rifle. The WC would try and get around this issue by claiming the fibers on the rifle from the blanket fell off when it was put in the alleged bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, let me ask you a hypothetical question, Mr. Stombaugh. First, I hand you Commission Exhibit 139, which consists of a rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, and I ask you, if the rifle had lain in the blanket, which is 140, and were then put inside the bag, 142, could it have picked up fibers from the blanket and transferred them to the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.
Hypothetical indeed, as this was ALL the WC had to work with once again. WC defenders need to stop claiming that blanket and shirt fibers were found on the rifle or in the bag as neither is true since NO positive match was ever made for these claims.
4.bp.blogspot.com/-W8PYTYaGuJ4/WgjnI3Kr_aI/AAAAAAABNok/QNNHkPM8o7QEaXEhDEIGy5BrIHjNyWFEQCLcBGAs/s1600/CE150-Oswald-Shirt.jpg
Based on this testimony by FBI Expert Paul Stombaugh (hair and fiber expert), how could he find fibers from the shirt worn by Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) on November 22, 1963, AND fibers from the blanket that the rifle was allegedly wrapped in on the alleged murder weapon (CE 139)?
It should be noted right away that LHO said he changed shirts when he went to his rooming house (and this is supported by the FBI) around 1:00 p.m. so this would mean the shirt he was arrested in was NOT the shirt he was wearing at work, but let’s put that aside at this time.
Here is some testimony from Stombaugh that got me thinking.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you made that examination?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. The gun was to be treated for latent fingerprints also, so I wore a pair of white cotton gloves to protect any latents that might be present on the gun. I placed the gun under a low-powered microscope and examined the gun from the end of the barrel to the end of the stock, removing what fibers I could find from crevices adhering to the gun.
I noticed immediately upon receiving the gun that this gun had been dusted for latent fingerprints prior to my receiving it. Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun; it was pretty well dusted off, and at the time I noted to myself that I doubted very much if there would be any fibers adhering to the outside of this gun--I possibly might find some in a crevice some place--because when the latent fingerprint man dusted this gun, apparently in Dallas, they use a little brush to dust with they would have dusted any fibers off the gun at the same time; so this I noted before I ever started to really examine the gun.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were you unhappy at all about that?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I was; however, it is not uncommon for fingerprint processing to be given priority consideration. They wanted to know whether or not the gun contained any fibers to show that it had been stored in this blanket, and with all the obstructions and the crevices on the metal parts of this gun, ordinarily a fiber would adhere pretty well, unless you take a brush and brush it off, and then you brush it on the floor and it is lost.
Mr. EISENBERG. Who was "they," you said "they" wanted to know?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, this is our Dallas office. They sent the gun in wanting to know this fact.
Based on this testimony it seems the rifle was “brushed for prints” and this would knock any fibers on the rifle loose. He even said this, “…with all the obstructions and the crevices on the metal parts of this gun, ordinarily a fiber would adhere pretty well, UNLESS YOU TAKE A BRUSH AND BRUSH IT OFF, and then you brush it on the floor and it is lost.” Despite the rifle being dusted with a brush pretty thoroughly we are asked to believe there were still fibers found on it in the butt plate!
Mr. EISENBERG. Let's get that a little more specific if we can. Can you point to that again?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. In this area, the butt plate of the stock, this is a metal butt plate, you can see the jagged edge on it.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is on the left side of the butt plate?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. It is on the left side; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. In approximately in the middle there is a jagged edge, jagged inside edge, where the butt plate comes into contact with the wood, is that what you are referring to?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; there is a jagged edge there. This area right here, according to my notes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed. These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide, and marked this particular slide "No. 2," because this little group of fibers--little tuft of fibers, appeared to be fresh.
The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old.
You can look at a fiber and tell whether it has been beaten around or exposed much. These appeared to be fairly fresh.
Notice how he said the remaining fibers on the gun that managed to survive the brushing were either adhering to a “greasy, oily deposit” or jammed into a crevice and were dirty and apparently very old. I have to ask again, if the gun was this OILY why was NO oil found on the alleged bag it was carried in earlier in the morning of November 22, 1963? We are asked to believe that the person dusting this rifle with a brush did NOT knock the fibers off the butt plate so they could be found by Stombaugh when he had said it was customary for the fibers to be knocked loose. Is this just another coincidence? These few fresh fibers were linked to the blanket the rifle was allegedly wrapped in, but Stombaugh said all other fibers were older and could have been there for some time.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, returning once more to this question of freshness. Would you say they had been placed there within 1 hour, or 1 day, or 1 week of the time when you received the rifle or longer?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I couldn't say in that regard to any period of time. I refer, by saying they appeared fresh, to the fact that the other fibers I removed from this gun were greasy, mashed, and broken, where these were fairly good long fibers. They were not dirty, with the exception of a little bit of fingerprint powder on them which I cleaned off, and the color was good. They were in good shape, not fragmented. They could conceivably have been put on 10 years ago and then the gun put aside and remain the same. Dust would have settled on them, would have changed their color a little bit, but as far as when they got on the gun, I wouldn't be able to say. This would just be speculation on my part.
This shows the "fresh" fibers could have been put on the rifle a month before or more since he could NOT say they were put there that day as the WC wanted. This again shows the WC had NO evidence for their claims.
Only one set of fibers that were of value were found, and he would say this later on regarding what they were from in his opinion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any further information you would like to give us concerning your examinations of the paper bag, the rifle, the blanket, or the shirt which we have discussed this morning?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Just the fibers I removed.
Mr. DULLES. Are you going to go into the relationship of the fibers that were found in the jagged edge?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Mr. Stombaugh, did you attempt to determine the origin of the fibers which were caught in the butt plate of the rifle?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I did. I tried to match these fibers with the fibers in the blanket, and found that they had not originated from the blanket, because the cotton fibers were of entirely different colors. So I happened to think of the shirt and I made a known sample of the shirt fibers.
Mr. EISENBERG. What does that mean?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I removed fibers from the shirt to determine the composition of it and also the colors. I found that the shirt was composed of dark-blue, grayish-black, and orangish-yellow cotton fibers, and that these were the same shades of fibers I had found on the butt plate of the gun.
Mr. DULLES. Did you find all three shades?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. All three shades; yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. All three shades were found on the fragments that were found in the butt of the gun?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. On the basis of these examinations, did you draw a conclusion as to the probability of the cotton fibers found in the butt plate having come from the shirt pictured in Exhibit 673?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; it was my opinion that these fibers could easily have come from the shirt…. [but] there is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."
CE 673: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0178b.jpg
This shows us the ONLY fresh and valuable fibers found, based on Stombaugh’s testimony, where for the shirt LHO was likely NOT even wearing at the time of the assassination! Is this just another coincidence? Furthermore, this could NOT be proven since he could NOT "positively state" that the fibers came from that shirt to the exclusion of all other similar shirts.
Can any WC defender tell me why the ONLY fresh and valuable fibers found on the alleged murder weapon matched the colors of a shirt LHO was possibly NOT even wearing at the time of the assassination? Furthermore, can you explain why the WC and its defenders claim the fibers found on the gun matched the blanket (CE 140) when there were NO fibers to match according to this testimony? He would even admit that no fibers from the blanket were found on the gun in this testimony.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I asked you a hypothetical question before concerning whether the rifle could have been a mechanism for transferring fibers from the blanket into the paper bag, and as I recall you said it could have. Now, is it inconsistent with that answer that no fibers were found on the gun which matched the fibers in the blanket[/i]?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; because the gun was dusted for fingerprints and any fibers that were loosely adhering to it could have been dusted off.
The only reason, I feel, that these fibers remained on the butt plate is because they were pulled from the fabric by the jagged edge and adhered to the gun and then the fingerprint examiner with his brush, I feel, when brushing and dusting this butt plate, stroked them down into that crevice where they couldn't be knocked off. In time these fibers would have undoubtedly become dislodged and fallen off the gun.
So the ONLY viable fibers found “could have” come from a shirt LHO was NOT wearing at the time of the assassination! But, NO WC defender, can claim blanket fibers were also found on the rifle. The WC would try and get around this issue by claiming the fibers on the rifle from the blanket fell off when it was put in the alleged bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, let me ask you a hypothetical question, Mr. Stombaugh. First, I hand you Commission Exhibit 139, which consists of a rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, and I ask you, if the rifle had lain in the blanket, which is 140, and were then put inside the bag, 142, could it have picked up fibers from the blanket and transferred them to the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.
Hypothetical indeed, as this was ALL the WC had to work with once again. WC defenders need to stop claiming that blanket and shirt fibers were found on the rifle or in the bag as neither is true since NO positive match was ever made for these claims.