Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

When I consider how a thumbprint such as this might have occurred "by accident", all that comes to mind is that the person picked up the photo by pinching it between his thumb and index finger. 

Can you think of anything else? If it wasn't that, then we're back to the fingerprinting as per police fingerprinting, and there is nothing accidental about that.

But, the picking it up scenario doesn't work either because this was a Polaroid with a huge tab on the right.

Actually, there was a sizable margin all the way around the photo that would have enabled a person to handle it easily without touching the photographic area at all. And we have all been handling photographs our whole lives and are used to doing it. But, if one were going to pick it up by pressing one's thumb into it with one's index finger behind, there is that huge area on the right which allows that. One might even say that that's what it's for. And remember that the photo is extremely light- to the point of being, for all practical purposes, weightless. Therefore, there is no issue about picking it up asymmetrically. It's not going to be a problem. 

So, who would be stupid enough to plant his thumb right into the body of the photo?????  And again, his thumb would have to have been coated with something to produce the effect that we see. A dry thumb, meaning just a regular normal thumb, wouldn't do it. 

But, getting back to this other one:

Robin Unger says that this is the original. But, he means that it's a photograph of the original. Well, it could not have been Mary Moorman's because she didn't take a photo of her own photo. So, that would mean that somebody else did, presumably someone in law enforcement. In that case, why did they have to go back and get hers? Undoubtedly, they had copies that were enlarged and enhanced, and hence, better than the original. So, why did they need to see hers again? 

It was reported that law enforcement definitely made a copy of her photo before they sent her home with it on 11/22/63, and they also made a negative of it. So again: why did they ever need to see Mary Moorman's original again?