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

Big, Big, Big, Big, Big! Mary Moorman said that the thumbprint did not happen when the image was wet or was in her possession.

MM: the second time the FBI took it, when it was returned, it had a big thumbprint on it.

Interviewer: So, the thumbprint was put on your picture by someone at the FBI?

MM: Yes, and it would be nice to know whose thumbprint that was so that I could be angry with him.

Alright, now let's think about this. She took the photo home that evening at 6:00, and they came and got it again at midnight. But, by midnight, the image was completely dry, completely stable, and there is no way that handling it with your fingers would do anything but mildly smudge it. What would it take to get a big white smudge there? Are we supposed to believe that it was accidental? That it was a matter of oops? 

This did NOT happen when the photo was wet, when it was developing. It had happened after the photo was perfectly dry and stable, and it is hard to imagine how it could happen. This was a forensic photo and a highly historical photo. How hard would you have to press your thumb to the dry picture to do that? And why would it leave such a white mark? What was on the man's thumb to leave such a white mark? And notice that the white of the mark is superimposed on the white of the helmet. Does anyone want to defend this?