BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963

[Walt Cakebread]

Your undated evidence list tells no tale.

If you can't see that the evidence list was created on 11/22/63, When you should know damned well that the evidence was turned over to Hoover's "Extra Special" Special agents ...and you know the DPD inventoried and photographed the evidence before releasing it to the FBI....If you can't understand what's being manipulated here then you really have no business debating the case.....

[Zeon Mason]

Lt. Day immediately turned toward the window behind him and started dusting the weapon for fingerprints. Day was still within the enclosure formed by the surrounding boxes. I filmed him lifting prints from the rifle. He lifted them off with scotch tape and placed them on little white cards. when he had finished, he handed the rifle to Captain Fritz.

Thank you for posting Alyea's statement Zeon.....   But why do you deny that Alyea filmed Day lifting prints with scotch tape and placing the lifts on "little white cards" ?

the alleged  "lift" of a palm print on the barrel, WAS NOT filmed by Tom Alyea, since the rifle was NOT disassembled in that film segment of Tom Alyea recording Lt.Day doing some dusting of a FULLY ASSEMBLED rifle.

Zeon, the lift of the smudge that the mendacious Day said was taken from the metal barrel...Was actually one of the lifts that Day took from the WOODEN parts of the carcano as Alyea watched.   The CE exhibit ( CE 637) itself is PROOF that the lift was taken off the Wooden foregrip of a model 91/38 Manlicher Carcano.
The two parallel lines are the edges of the bayonet slot that is cut into the wooden fore grip of the model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano  to allow the blade to be folded back and out of the way when it wasn't being used.

You simply must refrain from believing the mendacious authorities.....

Are you suggesting that there was a conclusive and definite print from Oswalds palm or finger that was lifted from the wooden stock and was later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel, which as most of us know is NOT confirmed by either the FBI fingerprint test nor by FBI agent Drain, hence the reason Lt. Day refused to sign an affidavit stating having told Drain of the existence of ANY prints let alone a palm print lift, at the time Agent Drain took possession of the rifle.

[John Iacoletti]

If you can't see that the evidence list was created on 11/22/63,

Nobody can ?see? that the evidence list was created on 11/22/63, because it?s undated. Also, the magic partial palmprint did not accompany the other evidence that was turned over to the FBI that night.

[Walt Cakebread]

Are you suggesting that there was a conclusive and definite print from Oswalds palm or finger that was lifted from the wooden stock and was later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel, which as most of us know is NOT confirmed by either the FBI fingerprint test nor by FBI agent Drain, hence the reason Lt. Day refused to sign an affidavit stating having told Drain of the existence of ANY prints let alone a palm print lift, at the time Agent Drain took possession of the rifle.

Are you suggesting that there was a conclusive and definite print from Oswalds palm or finger that was lifted from the wooden stock and was later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel, which as most of us know is NOT confirmed by either the FBI fingerprint test nor by FBI agent Drain, hence the reason Lt. Day refused to sign an affidavit stating having told Drain of the existence of ANY prints let alone a palm print lift, at the time Agent Drain took possession of the rifle.

Are you suggesting that there was a conclusive and definite print from Oswalds palm or finger that was lifted from the wooden stock and was later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel, ?

I'm clearly stating ( not suggesting) that CE 637 is conclusive and definite proof that the UNIDENTIFIABLE smudge that is now called "Oswald's Palm Print" was lifted from the wooden fore grip of a carcano.    That statement is strongly supported by the FACT that the bayonet slot ( the two parallel lines) is visible on the lifted smudge that Day stuck to a 3 X 5 white index card and then identified where that lift had been taken from..." Off underside of barrell near end of fore grip  c2766 ...JC Day  11/22/63.

I'm also clearly stating that the 3 X 5 index card with the cellophane tape with the smudge on it was released to FBI agent Vincent Drain ( VED)  by Captain George Dogherty  ( GMD) at midnight 11 /22/63....  And there is an evidence inventory list that was created for the evidence that was being released to the FBI at midnight 11/ 22/ 63....  That 3 X 5 index card is listed ( item #14 ) on that evidence list.

later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel,

THERE WAS NO DAMNED LIFT TAKEN OFF THE 5/8 INCH DIAMETER METAL BARREL!.......THAT IDEA IS RIDICULOUS!.....  IT'S A LIE CREATED BY THE AUTHORITIES.

What you accept as being the truth, is the lie created by the authorities .... CE 637 was NOT lifted from the metal barrel.....it WAS definitely lifted from the WOODEN fore grip of the carcano ...and it was lifted while Day was working with the rifle in the TSBD at about 1:45 that afternoon...and Tom Alyea watched Day lift that unidentifiable smudge , which the authorities later claimed was Lee Oswald's palm print......

[Zeon Mason]

Are you suggesting that there was a conclusive and definite print from Oswalds palm or finger that was lifted from the wooden stock and was later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel, which as most of us know is NOT confirmed by either the FBI fingerprint test nor by FBI agent Drain, hence the reason Lt. Day refused to sign an affidavit stating having told Drain of the existence of ANY prints let alone a palm print lift, at the time Agent Drain took possession of the rifle.

Are you suggesting that there was a conclusive and definite print from Oswalds palm or finger that was lifted from the wooden stock and was later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel, ?

I'm clearly stating ( not suggesting) that CE 637 is conclusive and definite proof that the UNIDENTIFIABLE smudge that is now called "Oswald's Palm Print" was lifted from the wooden fore grip of a carcano.    That statement is strongly supported by the FACT that the bayonet slot ( the two parallel lines) is visible on the lifted smudge that Day stuck to a 3 X 5 white index card and then identified where that lift had been taken from..." Off underside of barrell near end of fore grip  c2766 ...JC Day  11/22/63.

I'm also clearly stating that the 3 X 5 index card with the cellophane tape with the smudge on it was released to FBI agent Vincent Drain ( VED)  by Captain George Dogherty  ( GMD) at midnight 11 /22/63....  And there is an evidence inventory list that was created for the evidence that was being released to the FBI at midnight 11/ 22/ 63....  That 3 X 5 index card is listed ( item #14 ) on that evidence list.

later confused somewhow as the palm print lift from the barrel,

THERE WAS NO DAMNED LIFT TAKEN OFF THE 5/8 INCH DIAMETER METAL BARREL!.......THAT IDEA IS RIDICULOUS!.....  IT'S A LIE CREATED BY THE AUTHORITIES.

So Lt.Day lifted an UNIDENTIFIABLE?  smudge print from the WOODEN stock, which later would become CE 637. a palm print from Oswald found on the BARREL, because Lt.Day changed his story to that in his WC testimony?


Lt.Days WC testimony excerpt pertaining to the MC rifle:

Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.
Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?
Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. From the firing end of the barrel, you mean the muzzle?
Mr. DAY. The muzzle; yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on the metal or you mean you found it on the wood?
Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm


Now, i am not saying Lt.Day was  incapable of "embellishment" after the  fact, and change his original finding of an undentifable smudge print on the wooden stock which was the original CE 637 to an altered version CE 637 and LT. Day WC testimony of lifting the print from the barrel. 

The question is why? Could the tape be reused? or some other tape be submitted later, after they took the rifle to the morgue 7 days later, and placed barrel in Oswalds dead hand, so as to get a palm print?

[Walt Cakebread]

So Lt.Day lifted an UNIDENTIFIABLE?  smudge print from the WOODEN stock, which later would become CE 637. a palm print from Oswald found on the BARREL, because Lt.Day changed his story to that in his WC testimony?


Lt.Days WC testimony excerpt pertaining to the MC rifle:

Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.
Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?
Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. From the firing end of the barrel, you mean the muzzle?
Mr. DAY. The muzzle; yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on the metal or you mean you found it on the wood?
Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm


Now, i am not saying Lt.Day was  incapable of "embellishment" after the  fact, and change his original finding of an undentifable smudge print on the wooden stock which was the original CE 637 to an altered version CE 637 and LT. Day WC testimony of lifting the print from the barrel. 

The question is why? Could the tape be reused? or some other tape be submitted later, after they took the rifle to the morgue 7 days later, and placed barrel in Oswalds dead hand, so as to get a palm print?

Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.

This statement by J.C.Day is a bold faced lie......The two parallel lines indicate that the lift was taken from the wooden fore grip.    And not only that...The small diameter metal barrel ( 5/8") was too small to accept an adult man's palm print.   

And the wood grain is also visible on some copies of CE 637.....

And what's more...IF Day had found a print on the metal barrel while in the DPD crime lab, he would not have needed to lift it...

The reason for lifting a print is to keep it from being damaged......Well, in the lab there was no possibility of the print being damage ( if there had been a print)  And the wooden fore grip covers that part of the barrel which would have protected any print far better than lifting the print.....and what's more the FBI technician in Washington said that he could detect NOTHING that indicated that portion of the rifle had ever been examined with finger print powder.   

[Zeon Mason]

Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.

This statement by J.C.Day is a bold faced lie......The two parallel lines indicate that the lift was taken from the wooden fore grip.    And not only that...The small diameter metal barrel ( 5/8") was too small to accept an adult man's palm print.   

And the wood grain is also visible on some copies of CE 637.....

And what's more...IF Day had found a print on the metal barrel while in the DPD crime lab, he would not have needed to lift it...

The reason for lifting a print is to keep it from being damaged......Well, in the lab there was no possibility of the print being damage ( if there had been a print)  And the wooden fore grip covers that part of the barrel which would have protected any print far better than lifting the print.....and what's more the FBI technician in Washington said that he could detect NOTHING that indicated that portion of the rifle had ever been examined with finger print powder.

Im going to give Lt.Day some benefit of the doubt that he was COERCED into making one embellishment, and then another, and then another, incrementally, until he was so deep into it, that he had NO choice but to continue on with whatever the WCs final conclusion was to become.

I would like to think that he and perhaps Wietzman, and possibly even Studebaker, started out trying to be objective, but when the news came of Officer Tippet being shot, and Oswald found in the theater with a pistol, Imo, they became biased subconsciously at the least, and from that point forward, whatever "embellishment' or alterations, and even out right lies, they rationalized as "making sure the killer didn't get away with it"

And they believed that Oswald was the Cop killer, and Will Fritz had said this case was "cinched", LBJ and Hoover, their authoritarian leaders were adamant that Oswald MUST be found guilty and that conspiracy concerns should be avoided, in favor of wrapping up this investigation so the public could be reassured it was just a "lone nut"

[Colin Crow]

Colin the signature of Day is NOT identical....Nor is the time release the same.....  and there are other differences.......

These signatures were done at the same time. One on the original form and the WCE is the carbon copy of the original. The copy moved slightly so that the previous writing (the comment re the prints) appears in a slightly different position.