Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 26, 2018 9:36:40 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
4.bp.blogspot.com/-qp_aL1yPv9c/U62FgdKAK6I/AAAAAAAA1kg/a0K4T0LHqMo/s1600/Commission-Document-787-Regarding-Paraffin-Tests.png
www.whokilledjfk.net/images/paraff2.gif
The Dallas Police Department (DPD) initially said the paraffin tests conducted on Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) were the “cornerstone” of their case, but after it became known that LHO tested NEGATIVE for his cheek they said it was “completely unreliable.”
Why the change?
****************************************
In the beginning, the DPD relied heavily on the paraffin test for their evidence against LHO. If we look at Commission Exhibit (CE) 2146 we see a transcript of an interview session between the local media and Chief Jesse Curry.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0391b.gif
Q. Chief, we understand you’ve had the results of the paraffin tests which were made to determine whether Oswald had fired a weapon. Can you tell us what those tests showed?
Curry. I understand it was positive.
Q. What did the tests find?
Q. What does that mean?
Curry. It only means that he fired a gun.
Q. Chief, were the powder burns or powder marks on his cheek or on his shoulder?
Curry. I don’t know that. I don’t know that.
Q. That he fired a gun, Chief, not the rifle or the pistol?
Curry. That’s right. We just say a gun. (CE 2146, p. 5)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0391b.htm
Quote off
In CE 2168 we see District Attorney Henry Wade discussing the paraffin test.
Quote on
Q. What about the paraffin tests?
Wade. Yes, I’ve gone into that. The paraffin tests showed he had recently fired a gun. It was on both hands.
Q. On both hands?
Wade. Both hands.
Q. Recently fired a rifle?
Q. A gun?
Wade. A gun.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0420a.htm
Quote off
So we see they kept saying it showed he fired a “gun”, but did NOT refer to the rifle in the least. After it became known that he tested NEGATIVE for the cheek they quoted Cortlandt Cunningham in the WCR, page 561 saying the following:
Quote on
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I personally wouldn't expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.
Quote off
Really? Why then did Dr. Vincent P. Guinn say that when he tested the rifle EIGHT times with a person that person tested positive ALL EIGHT times on the cheek? This was included in an article done by the New York World-Telegram & Sun on August 28, 1964. The following can be found in Mark Lane’s book Rush To Judgment on pages 152-153.
Quote on
Tests were also made with a nuclear reactor on the cast of Oswald’s cheek. Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, head of the activation analysis program of general atomic division of General Dynamics Corporation, made an analysis of the of the paraffin cast, the results of which were presented to the Commission. Dr. Guinn said that he and his colleagues reasoned “that if a gun was fired and that some of the powder came back on the hands and cheek, some of the bullet primer should also come back.” They decided “to try looking for elements by putting the wax impressions of hands and cheeks into a nuclear reactor.” Guinn said that he had informed the FBI that it would be worthwhile to utilize “activation analysis” because the Dallas police had merely used the chemical paraffin test.
“We bought a similar rifle from the same shop and conducted two parallel tests,” Guinn said. “One person fired the rifle on eight occasions.” The scientist stated the paraffin casts were made and when tested by means of radioactivity “it was positive IN ALL EIGHT CASES and showed a primer on both hands and BOTH CHEEKS. The we took the cast of Oswald’s cheek and put them in a nuclear reactor.” Guinn added, “I cannot say that we found out about Oswald because it is a secret until the publication of the Warren Commission Report.”
…The Commission, evidently DIFFERING with ITS OWN AUTHORITY, stated only that it was “impossible to attach significance” to the radioactive response of Oswald’s paraffin casts. The Commission…refused to to inform its readers of the results of the tests performed after the assassination with an Italian Carbine identical to the so-called assassination rifle. Although Dr. Guinn worked closely with the FBI on behalf of the Commission, was entrusted with the precious paraffin casts by the Commission, THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO HIS NAME in the Report. (emphasis mine) (New York World-Telegran & Sun, 8/28/64)
Quote off
Two things that should be pointed out here. Firstly, did you see where Dr. Guinn said “We bought a similar rifle from the SAME SHOP…”? LHO was NOT accused of buying a rifle from a “shop”, but rather a MAIL ORDER HOUSE (Klein’s in Chicago, IL)! The argument long made by researchers is that LHO could have purchased a rifle from a shop and LEFT NO TRAIL to himself. Was this just another in a long chain of mistakes or a slipup by Guinn?
Secondly, while NOT being mentioned by the WC at all Dr. Guinn would of course figure much more prominently in the report and indexes of the HSCA. He would make some enlightening comments to the media following his testimony before the HSCA too. Here are those comments:
Quote on
After his testimony before the committee was completed, Dr. Guinn talked with several people in the hallway outside the committee room. His remarks were recorded on tape, and they are noteworthy. Among other things, Dr. Guinn said:
a. It was not until the fragments from the National Archives arrived at his California lab that he discovered he was testing fragments different from those tested by the FBI.
b. None of the weights matched those of the 1964 test fragments.
c. It would have been easy to deliberately falsify the evidence to be tested.
"Possibly they would take a bullet, take out a few little pieces and put it in the container, and say, 'This is what came out of Connally's wrist.' And naturally, if you compare it with 399, it will look alike... I have no control over these things."
Quote off
So we see in his work for the WC he shot down the claim it was “normal” for the type of rifle allegedly used (CE-139) to not show a positive on the shooter’s cheek; and we see him saying after his work for the HSCA that he was NOT given the SAME SAMPLES THE FBI USED IN 1964 as the weights were DIFFERENT and this could indicate that the samples could have been “deliberately falsified” to skew the evidence.
Despite being the government’s expert we owe a great deal to Dr. Guinn for making these things known. Once again, we see claims made by the WC are incorrect, thus, their conclusion is sunk again.
4.bp.blogspot.com/-qp_aL1yPv9c/U62FgdKAK6I/AAAAAAAA1kg/a0K4T0LHqMo/s1600/Commission-Document-787-Regarding-Paraffin-Tests.png
www.whokilledjfk.net/images/paraff2.gif
The Dallas Police Department (DPD) initially said the paraffin tests conducted on Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) were the “cornerstone” of their case, but after it became known that LHO tested NEGATIVE for his cheek they said it was “completely unreliable.”
Why the change?
****************************************
In the beginning, the DPD relied heavily on the paraffin test for their evidence against LHO. If we look at Commission Exhibit (CE) 2146 we see a transcript of an interview session between the local media and Chief Jesse Curry.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0391b.gif
Q. Chief, we understand you’ve had the results of the paraffin tests which were made to determine whether Oswald had fired a weapon. Can you tell us what those tests showed?
Curry. I understand it was positive.
Q. What did the tests find?
Q. What does that mean?
Curry. It only means that he fired a gun.
Q. Chief, were the powder burns or powder marks on his cheek or on his shoulder?
Curry. I don’t know that. I don’t know that.
Q. That he fired a gun, Chief, not the rifle or the pistol?
Curry. That’s right. We just say a gun. (CE 2146, p. 5)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0391b.htm
Quote off
In CE 2168 we see District Attorney Henry Wade discussing the paraffin test.
Quote on
Q. What about the paraffin tests?
Wade. Yes, I’ve gone into that. The paraffin tests showed he had recently fired a gun. It was on both hands.
Q. On both hands?
Wade. Both hands.
Q. Recently fired a rifle?
Q. A gun?
Wade. A gun.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0420a.htm
Quote off
So we see they kept saying it showed he fired a “gun”, but did NOT refer to the rifle in the least. After it became known that he tested NEGATIVE for the cheek they quoted Cortlandt Cunningham in the WCR, page 561 saying the following:
Quote on
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I personally wouldn't expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.
Quote off
Really? Why then did Dr. Vincent P. Guinn say that when he tested the rifle EIGHT times with a person that person tested positive ALL EIGHT times on the cheek? This was included in an article done by the New York World-Telegram & Sun on August 28, 1964. The following can be found in Mark Lane’s book Rush To Judgment on pages 152-153.
Quote on
Tests were also made with a nuclear reactor on the cast of Oswald’s cheek. Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, head of the activation analysis program of general atomic division of General Dynamics Corporation, made an analysis of the of the paraffin cast, the results of which were presented to the Commission. Dr. Guinn said that he and his colleagues reasoned “that if a gun was fired and that some of the powder came back on the hands and cheek, some of the bullet primer should also come back.” They decided “to try looking for elements by putting the wax impressions of hands and cheeks into a nuclear reactor.” Guinn said that he had informed the FBI that it would be worthwhile to utilize “activation analysis” because the Dallas police had merely used the chemical paraffin test.
“We bought a similar rifle from the same shop and conducted two parallel tests,” Guinn said. “One person fired the rifle on eight occasions.” The scientist stated the paraffin casts were made and when tested by means of radioactivity “it was positive IN ALL EIGHT CASES and showed a primer on both hands and BOTH CHEEKS. The we took the cast of Oswald’s cheek and put them in a nuclear reactor.” Guinn added, “I cannot say that we found out about Oswald because it is a secret until the publication of the Warren Commission Report.”
…The Commission, evidently DIFFERING with ITS OWN AUTHORITY, stated only that it was “impossible to attach significance” to the radioactive response of Oswald’s paraffin casts. The Commission…refused to to inform its readers of the results of the tests performed after the assassination with an Italian Carbine identical to the so-called assassination rifle. Although Dr. Guinn worked closely with the FBI on behalf of the Commission, was entrusted with the precious paraffin casts by the Commission, THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO HIS NAME in the Report. (emphasis mine) (New York World-Telegran & Sun, 8/28/64)
Quote off
Two things that should be pointed out here. Firstly, did you see where Dr. Guinn said “We bought a similar rifle from the SAME SHOP…”? LHO was NOT accused of buying a rifle from a “shop”, but rather a MAIL ORDER HOUSE (Klein’s in Chicago, IL)! The argument long made by researchers is that LHO could have purchased a rifle from a shop and LEFT NO TRAIL to himself. Was this just another in a long chain of mistakes or a slipup by Guinn?
Secondly, while NOT being mentioned by the WC at all Dr. Guinn would of course figure much more prominently in the report and indexes of the HSCA. He would make some enlightening comments to the media following his testimony before the HSCA too. Here are those comments:
Quote on
After his testimony before the committee was completed, Dr. Guinn talked with several people in the hallway outside the committee room. His remarks were recorded on tape, and they are noteworthy. Among other things, Dr. Guinn said:
a. It was not until the fragments from the National Archives arrived at his California lab that he discovered he was testing fragments different from those tested by the FBI.
b. None of the weights matched those of the 1964 test fragments.
c. It would have been easy to deliberately falsify the evidence to be tested.
"Possibly they would take a bullet, take out a few little pieces and put it in the container, and say, 'This is what came out of Connally's wrist.' And naturally, if you compare it with 399, it will look alike... I have no control over these things."
Quote off
So we see in his work for the WC he shot down the claim it was “normal” for the type of rifle allegedly used (CE-139) to not show a positive on the shooter’s cheek; and we see him saying after his work for the HSCA that he was NOT given the SAME SAMPLES THE FBI USED IN 1964 as the weights were DIFFERENT and this could indicate that the samples could have been “deliberately falsified” to skew the evidence.
Despite being the government’s expert we owe a great deal to Dr. Guinn for making these things known. Once again, we see claims made by the WC are incorrect, thus, their conclusion is sunk again.