CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?

[Charles Collins]

This is irrelevant also.

No it isn't

However, Henry Wade was a prosecutor, not an investigator.

Correction; History has exposed Henry Wade as an overzealous prosecutor with a massive amount of proven unsafe convinctions to his name

Fritz "mentioned" it to Wade before Oswald's death.

Yeah right.... from memory? And neither considered it useful to create a written record of it, really?

Therefore, it was told to someone outside the investigation team before LHO's death.

Really? If Wade was "outside the investigation" why was he told in the first place? You are not making any sense

However, criminal investigators typically do not disclose all the evidence to the public, while an investigation is ongoing, for good reasons.

Sure they don't, but that didn't stop DPD officers talking to the media from day 1


You are all over the place on this one, Charles.... now, why does that not surprise me?

No it isn't

Why do you think it is relevant?

Correction; History has exposed Henry Wade as an overzealous prosecutor with a massive amount of proven unsafe convinctions to his name

Yeah right.... from memory? And neither considered it useful to create a written record of it, really?

Relevance?

Really? If Wade was "outside the investigation" why was he told in the first place? You are not making any sense

He was the prosecutor. Not the public. He had a legitimate reason to ask.

[Gary Craig]

Hmm. So let's apply what I said to what you say is pertinent ...

"Those are opinion polls on Jack Ruby's having just shot Oswald,"...
     _{(ie: the "week" included November 25 to 29, 1963)}

..."not on the influence of conspiracy theorists."

Jerry "Obfuscation" Organ.

You're grasping at straw trying to support an untenable position.

The opinions expressed by those polls were definitely influenced by Ruby murdering LHO, in DPD custody, live in front of the world.

Portraying the intent as,"opinion polls on Jack Ruby's having just shot Oswald" is intellectually dishonest.

The majority of people asked did and still do believe there was a conspiracy of more than one person

involved in the assassination of JFK. Before critics began dismantling the WCR and after.

[Gary Craig]

How many people who participate in these polls have "scrutinized" the WC?  I bet half or more haven't even heard of it and less than ten percent have read a single page.  Most people don't know the basic facts fifty plus years later or give a fig.  Their uninformed opinions are worthless.  They are more likely to have seen Stone's wacky, paranoid fueled film and believe "something" may have happened.  What they have no idea.  Or that "one guy" couldn't pull it off for some unspecified reason.  The kind of baseless nonsense that is peddled by many CTers despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Regardless, before any critics dissected the WCR, and after, opinion polls showed a majority believed a conspiracy murdered JFK.

If the WCR is such a straight forward and overwhelming set of facts and evidence supporting the official LN narrative, why the need

to attack the uniformed, worthless, wacky, baseless opinions of the paranoid CT influenced pollees dug up by these obviously incompetent

pollsters?

[Martin Weidmann]

No it isn't

Why do you think it is relevant?

Because the claim was made only after Oswald's death, like John said.

Correction; History has exposed Henry Wade as an overzealous prosecutor with a massive amount of proven unsafe convinctions to his name

Yeah right.... from memory? And neither considered it useful to create a written record of it, really?

Relevance?

A prosecutor with countless unsafe convictions making a claim from memory after a suspect's death is of no relevance to you?

Really? If Wade was "outside the investigation" why was he told in the first place? You are not making any sense

He was the prosecutor. Not the public. He had a legitimate reason to ask.

Hang on one minute... You earlier claimed that;

"Fritz "mentioned" it to Wade before Oswald's death. Therefore, it was told to someone outside the investigation team before LHO's death."


But Wade was in fact involved in the investigation from day 1. He was already giving interviews during the time that Oswald was in custody, so your claim that someone outside the investigation was told is simply bogus.

[Charles Collins]

Because the claim was made only after Oswald's death, like John said.

A prosecutor with countless unsafe convictions making a claim from memory after a suspect's death is of no relevance to you?

Hang on one minute... You earlier claimed that;

"Fritz "mentioned" it to Wade before Oswald's death. Therefore, it was told to someone outside the investigation team before LHO's death."


But Wade was in fact involved in the investigation from day 1. He was already giving interviews during the time that Oswald was in custody, so your claim that someone outside the investigation was told is simply bogus.

Read Wade’s testimony. He explained how his office is separate from the police. And who was responsible for what.

[Martin Weidmann]

Read Wade’s testimony. He explained how his office is separate from the police. And who was responsible for what.

Of course he had a seperate office, but his comments about the case to the media from day 1 clearly show that he was actively involved in the investigation.....

If he wasn't he wouldn't have been able to make those comments and Fritz would have had no reason to tell Wade anything.

[Charles Collins]

Of course he had a seperate office, but his comments about the case to the media from day 1 clearly show that he was actively involved in the investigation.....

If he wasn't he wouldn't have been able to make those comments and Fritz would have had no reason to tell Wade anything.

Have you read his testimony where he explained why he even went to the DPD?

[Pat Speer]

The prosecution provides rock hard scientific evidence.

1) Lt. Day testified that he took the print on the day the print was dated.
2) The FBI provided evidence that the print on Days card was taken from Oswald's rifle, meaning Oswald touched the rifle.
3) The HSCA photography panel(PP) came to the conclusion that the same rifle in the backyard photos were from Oswald.
4) Scalice using new photos proved that the prints on the guard were found to be Oswald's.
5) The fresh fibers that were stuck in a crevice on Oswald's rifle came from Oswald's arrest shirt.

I honestly have no dog in this hunt, as I would be perfectly willing to believe Oswald, acting alone, killed Kennedy...should that be what the evidence suggests. Unfortunately, however, my attempt to separate fact from fiction in this case led me to conclude BOTH "sides" are full of it.

As to John's list...

1. Day told numerous falsehoods in his testimony, and his claims about the print were dubious, as best. It appears, moreover, that the WC came to believe as much. Day claimed, after all, that he told Curry and Fritz about the print on the evening of the assassination, and neither the FBI or WC made any effort to verify this with Curry or Fritz. While some claim, moreover, that Wade knew about the print and discussed it in his press conference, it's incredibly clear, once one looks at all the evidence, that Wade was speaking about the trigger guard print, which was listed as a possible palm print in memos written days after the press conference.
2. The FBI's "match" of the lift to the rifle is equally dubious. A. This "match" was described in a letter, and not sworn testimony. B. This "match" of five points fell far below the number of matching points required to say two prints were a match, and was of questionable scientific value. C. No FBI crime lab report on this match has ever surfaced, and it's quite possible there were a number of marks on the lift or the rifle that were not shared by the other, which would in effect make this "match" a "non-match." D. There is no record the FBI contacted Day and had him specify exactly where the print was on the rifle. As a consequence, the FBI's report is basically that we found five blemishes on the lift that roughly aligned with five blemishes on the rifle, which may or may not be where the print was supposedly found. Worthless.
3. No argument here. It may very well have been Oswald's rifle in the photos.
4. The FBI dismissed Scalice's use of five photos to match up one print as junk science, and refused to sign off on it. I believe this remains their position. Even worse, fingerprint charts are the cornerstone of ALL print identifications. It's basically showing your work.  Scalice's charts--if they ever existed--have never been published or shared. As a result, his identification of the trigger guard prints as Oswald's prints is near worthless, scientifically speaking. Even worse, he claims he used five photos from Savage to come to his conclusion. Well, this is mighty curious seeing as there were only three photos, and that the NEGATIVES to these photos were provided the FBI, as well as the prints themselves, and the FBI's own photos of the prints. 
5. The fibers on the rifle butt were, per Stombaugh, found on top the fingerprint powder. This led Stombaugh to offer that the fibers were wrapped around the butt plate while someone (Day) was dusting the rifle. Well, this is ludicrous. If there was a clump of fibers adhering to the butt plate while Day was dusting the area, he would have noticed them and removed them, that is, assuming he was remotely competent. Making matters worse is that when asked about it on the 23rd Oswald claimed he'd changed a dirty reddish shirt after work, and that this dirty "reddish"shirt was found among his possessions. The historical record, then, is this. The DPD and FBI had nothing to show Oswald touched the rifle on the 22nd. They then claimed they'd found fibers from his shirt on the rifle. They then found out that--oops--he hadn't been wearing that shirt that day. He was then murdered while in police custody, which essentially saved Fritz and the DPD from a trial in which his defense team would have argued the fibers were planted on the rifle--and would probably have won that argument (seeing as no one at work could identify the dark brown shirt in which he was arrested as a shirt he'd worn to work, and seeing as this shirt was not nearly as dirty as the shirt he claimed he'd been wearing).