What proves the preposterousness of what David Lawlor and Chris Gallup said is that if it was true that the agents were sitting around drinking coffee and eating donuts with a crucial piece of JFK assassination evidence on the table, and someone with wet, sticky hands pressed his thumb into the photo, then why didn't they revert to one of the copies?
We know from the record that after Jim Featherstone convinced Mary Moorman to take her photo to the Dallas Sheriff Department, that the first thing they did was take her photo from her. Then, while she remained in the press room fielding questions from reporters and having her picture taken, her photo was being copied in a photo lab somewhere. When they sent her home that evening with her photo, they certainly didn't do so with the understanding that it was the only copy in existence. Of course not. By that time, there were multiple copies in multiple hands.
So, if they ruined the original by getting a soiled wet thumb on it, why wouldn't they have gone back and made her a replica from the copies they already had? They could have done so and told her or not told her. But either way, it would have been better than returning to her a damaged photo. There is no reason why the damaged photo should have become the norm.
There is a form of the Moorman photo without the thumbprint, but it is not a copy of the original. It's a photoshopped copy of the damaged one. You can still the thumbprint in it if you look closely.
If you can't see the remnant of the thumbprint there, then you're fucking blind. That is most certainly NOT the original.
But, copies of the original were made on 11/22/63. So, there is no excuse, then or now, for relying on the spoiled one or even the repaired one. The pristine one should still be available- somewhere. Again: it was copied on 11/22/63.
So, the whole story of the innocent, unfortunate accident with the photo falls to pieces as pure malarchy. They did it on purpose. They were covering something up. There is no doubt about it.