Post by John Duncan on Mar 4, 2020 23:02:46 GMT -5
Quote on
THE PARAFFIN TEST
By Gil Jesus (2006)
At about 2:50 pm, suspected of having killed officer Tippit, 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.
In reality, the paraffin test shows the presence of oxidizers. Nitrates are one of many oxidizers. The WCR, Appendix X, "The Paraffin Test." wrote:
"In fact, however, the test is completely unreliable in determining either whether a person has recently fired a weapon or whether he has not. On the one hand, diphenylamine and diphenylbenzidine will react positively not only with nitrates from gunpowder residues, but nitrates from other sources and most oxidizing agents, including dichromates, permanganates, hypochlorates, periodares, and some oxides."
In other words, the test is unreliable only if the results are POSITIVE. A NEGATIVE result is PROOF that there are no oxidizers on the body, in this case, the cheek.
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 in the Commission's final report 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).
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 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. Could it have lied about the results?
Dallas FBI Chief Gordon Shanklin had no problem lying publicly about the Oswald 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."
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 FBI DID LIE. According to their own report, the FBI tests firings of Oswald's rifle left heavy deposits of nitrates on all the shooters' faces, quite the opposite of what Cunningham reported to the Warren Commission.
This posed a problem for the Commission, for if the FBI test shooters had "heavy" deposits of nitrates on their cheeks, and Oswald had none, then Oswald did not fire that rifle on November 22nd and thus did not kill Kennedy and wound Connally. The FBI tests were the proof that exonerated Oswald in the murder.
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 the FBI tests. Cunningham was obviously lying about the FBI test results. Instead of charging him with perjury, the Commission at first decided to simply ignore the results of the FBI 's test. Nearly eight months later, on September 15, 1964, with the Report ready to go to press, the matter had to be resolved. A second opinion to confirm Cunningham's 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 one of the first things that the Dallas Police did when they got Oswald to the station was to give him a test that was completely worthless and didn't prove that he fired the rifle.
And then, at 7 pm, the Dallas DA used the worthless positive reading on his hands as evidence to charge him with killing J.D. Tippit.
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 Dallas PD to Oswald's cheek was conclusive in proving that Oswald had not fired 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. D.A. 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 DA's deceptive.answer and the purpose for the FBI nitrate test become that much more evident.
This writer asks the reader: Have you ever heard of a negative test for DUI being inconclusive? What about a biopsy? A drug test? Ever heard of a negative test result OF ANY KIND that was not negative, but instead was inconclusive? I haven't.
Quote off
THE PARAFFIN TEST
By Gil Jesus (2006)
At about 2:50 pm, suspected of having killed officer Tippit, 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.
In reality, the paraffin test shows the presence of oxidizers. Nitrates are one of many oxidizers. The WCR, Appendix X, "The Paraffin Test." wrote:
"In fact, however, the test is completely unreliable in determining either whether a person has recently fired a weapon or whether he has not. On the one hand, diphenylamine and diphenylbenzidine will react positively not only with nitrates from gunpowder residues, but nitrates from other sources and most oxidizing agents, including dichromates, permanganates, hypochlorates, periodares, and some oxides."
In other words, the test is unreliable only if the results are POSITIVE. A NEGATIVE result is PROOF that there are no oxidizers on the body, in this case, the cheek.
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 in the Commission's final report 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).
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 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. Could it have lied about the results?
Dallas FBI Chief Gordon Shanklin had no problem lying publicly about the Oswald 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."
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 FBI DID LIE. According to their own report, the FBI tests firings of Oswald's rifle left heavy deposits of nitrates on all the shooters' faces, quite the opposite of what Cunningham reported to the Warren Commission.
This posed a problem for the Commission, for if the FBI test shooters had "heavy" deposits of nitrates on their cheeks, and Oswald had none, then Oswald did not fire that rifle on November 22nd and thus did not kill Kennedy and wound Connally. The FBI tests were the proof that exonerated Oswald in the murder.
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 the FBI tests. Cunningham was obviously lying about the FBI test results. Instead of charging him with perjury, the Commission at first decided to simply ignore the results of the FBI 's test. Nearly eight months later, on September 15, 1964, with the Report ready to go to press, the matter had to be resolved. A second opinion to confirm Cunningham's 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 one of the first things that the Dallas Police did when they got Oswald to the station was to give him a test that was completely worthless and didn't prove that he fired the rifle.
And then, at 7 pm, the Dallas DA used the worthless positive reading on his hands as evidence to charge him with killing J.D. Tippit.
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 Dallas PD to Oswald's cheek was conclusive in proving that Oswald had not fired 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. D.A. 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 DA's deceptive.answer and the purpose for the FBI nitrate test become that much more evident.
This writer asks the reader: Have you ever heard of a negative test for DUI being inconclusive? What about a biopsy? A drug test? Ever heard of a negative test result OF ANY KIND that was not negative, but instead was inconclusive? I haven't.
Quote off