Post by John Duncan on Sept 1, 2023 20:00:43 GMT -5
pbsinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/WhoWasLeeHarveyOswald.jpg
dmn-dallas-news-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/resizer/S_cBrIk-4azs9zGT3kfWkxiHFGA=/1660x0/smart/filters:no_upscale()/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-dmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/DNDOHCI7T7M5ZMX3RBMTY6JE4M.jpg
microbiologyinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/featured-nitrate-reduction-test-results.jpg
THE NITRATE TEST
Compiled by Gil Jesus 12/2002
Edited by John Duncan
At about 2:50 p.m., suspected of having killed [Dallas Police] Officer [J.D.] Tippit, [Lee Harvey] Oswald was given a paraffin test on both hands and his right cheek to determine whether or not he had fired a weapon. When a handgun is fired, the explosion of the gunpowder causes a dispersion of nitrates on the hand in which it is held.
When a rifle is fired, those nitrates escape during the period of the firing sequence that the chamber is open to eject/load the cartridges. In this test, a paraffin cast is applied to the hands and (if the weapon used is a rifle) the cheeks of the suspect. A positive reaction turns the paraffin blue, indicating the presence of nitrates. No change in color indicates no presence of nitrates.
Although there are many oxidants which could produce a positive reading, a negative reading is conclusive evidence that the suspect did not fire a weapon and is innocent. The paraffin test results were reliable enough that they were regularly used as evidence in criminal cases by prosecutors around the country.
Oswald's test results showed signs of nitrates on his hands, but no evidence of nitrates on his right cheek. The fact that the test showed no nitrates on Oswald's cheek was kept secret for 10 months, until it was revealed during the Warren Commission investigation in September 1964. When the Warren Commission printed the Dallas Police documents, there was no reference to the paraffin test at the bottom of the police evidence sheet.
At a news conference, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade, while labelling Oswald a "lone nut", was careful not to incriminate himself by publicly falsifying the results of the test. He was asked about the paraffin test:
Q: What about the paraffin tests?
A: Yes, I've got paraffin tests that showed he had recently fired a gun-- it was on both hands.
Q: On both hands?
A: On both hands.
Q: Recently fired a rifle?
A: A gun.
The exchange indicates that the press was surprised to find that the test revealed nitrates on both hands. Also, Wade was asked specifically if the test revealed that Oswald had used a rifle. His response indicates that he was selecting his words carefully, differentiating between a rifle and "a gun" (a pistol).
Dallas FBI Chief Gordon Shanklin, however, had no problem lying publicly about the test results. The New York Times on page 2 of its November 25, 1963, issue quoted him as saying that the paraffin test given to Oswald shortly after his arrest, "showed that gunpowder from a weapon, probably a rifle, remained on Oswald's cheek and hands."
Once again, faced with evidence which seemed to point to Oswald's innocence, the FBI was forced to try to prove that the paraffin test was, at the very least, inconclusive.
This is what the Warren Commission called the nitrate test results, "inconclusive". The Commission based its finding on results provided to it by
the FBI and testimony by the Bureau's firearms expert Cortlandt Cunningham, who called the test "worthless". In the FBI test, conducted by the Energy and Research and Development Administration (ERDA), 17 men fired 5 rounds each from a .38 caliber revolver. All of the men were then given the nitrate test, 8 men had no nitrates on both hands, 3 had no nitrates on the firing hand, but nitrates on the non-firing hand, 2 had nitrates on the firing hand and no nitrates on the non-firing hand. The FBI did reconstruction tests where a shooter fired the Oswald rifle and they reported that there was never a positive result taken from any paraffin cast taken of the right cheek.
Or so the FBI reported. But it may have lied about the results.
According to Harold Weisberg, who sued (ERDA) and the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act (CA 75-226) for the results of their paraffin tests with OSWALD'S rifle, the tests firings left heavy deposits on all the shooters' faces, quite the opposite of what we were told by the Warren Commission.
To address this problem, the Warren Commission held an executive session on January 27, 1964. The transcript of that meeting was originally classified TOP SECRET until Weisberg's FOIA lawsuit made it public. That session included the discussion by Rankin and the Commission members who were present about the results of these tests. Was Cunningham lying? The Commission at first decided to simply ignore the results. But on September 15, 1964, with the Report ready to go to press, the matter had to be resolved. A second opinion to confirm the first was needed to put the matter to rest. The Commission decided to depose another FBI agent, this one Lab agent John Gallagher to get him to say that the tests were worthless, which he did.
So, we are left to believe that the first thing that the Dallas Police did when they got Oswald to the station, before they could book him and fingerprint him, was to give him a test that was completely worthless and didn't prove that he pulled the trigger. That's EXACTLY what the supporters of the Oswald-did-it theory would have you believe.
And then the Dallas Police Department (DPD) used the "worthless" positive reading on his hands as evidence to charge him with killing J.D. Tippit. Doesn't sound to me like THEY thought it was worthless.
In conclusion, the nitrate test was inconclusive only in proving that Oswald had fired a handgun. A positive reading could have from other sources. While the absence of nitrates on his cheek was conclusive proof that he did not fire a rifle. This posed a dilemma for authorities, as they knew that this was not enough for a conviction in a court of law.
However, after Oswald was dead and the evidence would never be subject to the scrutiny of defense attorneys and juries, all that was needed was to convict him in the minds of the public. This was partly done by releasing certain information to the press (ex: nitrates on both hands) that implied his guilt, while suppressing evidence which supported his innocence (ex: no nitrates on cheek).
The paraffin cast administered by the DPD to Oswald's cheek was conclusive in proving that Oswald did not fire a rifle. They knew it and when they turned the evidence over to the FBI, the FBI knew it. Authorities kept this evidence secret for 10 months.
If the nitrate test had been worthless, there would have been NO REASON TO HIDE THAT FACT FROM THE PUBLIC. District Attorney Wade would have revealed it during the press conference, and THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO REASON FOR THE FBI TO CONDUCT ITS OWN NITRATE TEST for the Warren Commission.
However, if the test result had proven that Oswald had NOT fired a rifle, then does the reason to keep it secret, the District Attorney's deceptive answer and the purpose for the FBI nitrate test become that much more evident.
I find it hard to believe that any police department would so quickly administer a test to a man suspected of killing one of their own, if that test
was as unreliable or worthless as the FBI would have us believe.
dmn-dallas-news-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/resizer/S_cBrIk-4azs9zGT3kfWkxiHFGA=/1660x0/smart/filters:no_upscale()/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-dmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/DNDOHCI7T7M5ZMX3RBMTY6JE4M.jpg
microbiologyinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/featured-nitrate-reduction-test-results.jpg
THE NITRATE TEST
Compiled by Gil Jesus 12/2002
Edited by John Duncan
At about 2:50 p.m., suspected of having killed [Dallas Police] Officer [J.D.] Tippit, [Lee Harvey] Oswald was given a paraffin test on both hands and his right cheek to determine whether or not he had fired a weapon. When a handgun is fired, the explosion of the gunpowder causes a dispersion of nitrates on the hand in which it is held.
When a rifle is fired, those nitrates escape during the period of the firing sequence that the chamber is open to eject/load the cartridges. In this test, a paraffin cast is applied to the hands and (if the weapon used is a rifle) the cheeks of the suspect. A positive reaction turns the paraffin blue, indicating the presence of nitrates. No change in color indicates no presence of nitrates.
Although there are many oxidants which could produce a positive reading, a negative reading is conclusive evidence that the suspect did not fire a weapon and is innocent. The paraffin test results were reliable enough that they were regularly used as evidence in criminal cases by prosecutors around the country.
Oswald's test results showed signs of nitrates on his hands, but no evidence of nitrates on his right cheek. The fact that the test showed no nitrates on Oswald's cheek was kept secret for 10 months, until it was revealed during the Warren Commission investigation in September 1964. When the Warren Commission printed the Dallas Police documents, there was no reference to the paraffin test at the bottom of the police evidence sheet.
At a news conference, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade, while labelling Oswald a "lone nut", was careful not to incriminate himself by publicly falsifying the results of the test. He was asked about the paraffin test:
Q: What about the paraffin tests?
A: Yes, I've got paraffin tests that showed he had recently fired a gun-- it was on both hands.
Q: On both hands?
A: On both hands.
Q: Recently fired a rifle?
A: A gun.
The exchange indicates that the press was surprised to find that the test revealed nitrates on both hands. Also, Wade was asked specifically if the test revealed that Oswald had used a rifle. His response indicates that he was selecting his words carefully, differentiating between a rifle and "a gun" (a pistol).
Dallas FBI Chief Gordon Shanklin, however, had no problem lying publicly about the test results. The New York Times on page 2 of its November 25, 1963, issue quoted him as saying that the paraffin test given to Oswald shortly after his arrest, "showed that gunpowder from a weapon, probably a rifle, remained on Oswald's cheek and hands."
Once again, faced with evidence which seemed to point to Oswald's innocence, the FBI was forced to try to prove that the paraffin test was, at the very least, inconclusive.
This is what the Warren Commission called the nitrate test results, "inconclusive". The Commission based its finding on results provided to it by
the FBI and testimony by the Bureau's firearms expert Cortlandt Cunningham, who called the test "worthless". In the FBI test, conducted by the Energy and Research and Development Administration (ERDA), 17 men fired 5 rounds each from a .38 caliber revolver. All of the men were then given the nitrate test, 8 men had no nitrates on both hands, 3 had no nitrates on the firing hand, but nitrates on the non-firing hand, 2 had nitrates on the firing hand and no nitrates on the non-firing hand. The FBI did reconstruction tests where a shooter fired the Oswald rifle and they reported that there was never a positive result taken from any paraffin cast taken of the right cheek.
Or so the FBI reported. But it may have lied about the results.
According to Harold Weisberg, who sued (ERDA) and the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act (CA 75-226) for the results of their paraffin tests with OSWALD'S rifle, the tests firings left heavy deposits on all the shooters' faces, quite the opposite of what we were told by the Warren Commission.
To address this problem, the Warren Commission held an executive session on January 27, 1964. The transcript of that meeting was originally classified TOP SECRET until Weisberg's FOIA lawsuit made it public. That session included the discussion by Rankin and the Commission members who were present about the results of these tests. Was Cunningham lying? The Commission at first decided to simply ignore the results. But on September 15, 1964, with the Report ready to go to press, the matter had to be resolved. A second opinion to confirm the first was needed to put the matter to rest. The Commission decided to depose another FBI agent, this one Lab agent John Gallagher to get him to say that the tests were worthless, which he did.
So, we are left to believe that the first thing that the Dallas Police did when they got Oswald to the station, before they could book him and fingerprint him, was to give him a test that was completely worthless and didn't prove that he pulled the trigger. That's EXACTLY what the supporters of the Oswald-did-it theory would have you believe.
And then the Dallas Police Department (DPD) used the "worthless" positive reading on his hands as evidence to charge him with killing J.D. Tippit. Doesn't sound to me like THEY thought it was worthless.
In conclusion, the nitrate test was inconclusive only in proving that Oswald had fired a handgun. A positive reading could have from other sources. While the absence of nitrates on his cheek was conclusive proof that he did not fire a rifle. This posed a dilemma for authorities, as they knew that this was not enough for a conviction in a court of law.
However, after Oswald was dead and the evidence would never be subject to the scrutiny of defense attorneys and juries, all that was needed was to convict him in the minds of the public. This was partly done by releasing certain information to the press (ex: nitrates on both hands) that implied his guilt, while suppressing evidence which supported his innocence (ex: no nitrates on cheek).
The paraffin cast administered by the DPD to Oswald's cheek was conclusive in proving that Oswald did not fire a rifle. They knew it and when they turned the evidence over to the FBI, the FBI knew it. Authorities kept this evidence secret for 10 months.
If the nitrate test had been worthless, there would have been NO REASON TO HIDE THAT FACT FROM THE PUBLIC. District Attorney Wade would have revealed it during the press conference, and THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO REASON FOR THE FBI TO CONDUCT ITS OWN NITRATE TEST for the Warren Commission.
However, if the test result had proven that Oswald had NOT fired a rifle, then does the reason to keep it secret, the District Attorney's deceptive answer and the purpose for the FBI nitrate test become that much more evident.
I find it hard to believe that any police department would so quickly administer a test to a man suspected of killing one of their own, if that test
was as unreliable or worthless as the FBI would have us believe.