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

[Martin Weidmann]

The above is why I asked you to read Wade's testimony. It clearly shows exactly what I have been saying and you refuse to accept.

You quoting your "bible" doesn't change anything I have said on the subject.

[Charles Collins]

You quoting your "bible" doesn't change anything I have said on the subject.

In your mind.

[Thomas Halle]

There are some problems with this question. Mainly, in that there are some assumptions at work here. Fact is, three rifles were found in the TSBD, a British Enfield, a German Mauser, and a cheap Italian Army surplus weapon (with poorly aligned sight, and no magazine), the Mannlicher-Carcano...and none of them was positively established as belonging to LHO. What's more, the M-C carbine was found under some boxes at the opposite side of the building from the supposed "sniper-nest" on the south side of the building. Finally, there is pretty good evidence that LO was not even on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, but was on the front steps of the building. Thus, I have a serious problem with anyone referring to the M-C weapon as "Oswald's rifle." At the very most, one MIGHT choose to refer to it as "Oswald's rifle" or Oswald's "supposed rifle." Or--to be honest (and not employ "loaded questions")--one might simply ask how the M-C carbine (whatever its value) might have ended up on the north side of the sixth floor (or other floor, as the early testimony mentioned other floors).

[Charles Collins]

I'm implying that there is no good reason to believe that the index card with the partial palmprint on it was lifted from CE139 or even existed on 11/22/63.

Well the Dallas Morning news appears to have given an 11/24/63 front page article quote by "an investigator" some credence. Maybe they felt that there was a "good reason to believe" it.

Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the triple underpass. We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said.

Here is a link to the front page: http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/156

So it would appear that someone did say something to The Dallas Morning News (before Oswald's death).

[Martin Weidmann]

Well the Dallas Morning news appears to have given an 11/24/63 front page article quote by "an investigator" some credence. Maybe they felt that there was a "good reason to believe" it.

Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the triple underpass. We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said.

Here is a link to the front page: http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/156

So it would appear that someone did say something to The Dallas Morning News (before Oswald's death).

We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said.

A print? How do you know this is the print on the index card that was allegedly taken from the rifle?

It could have been a print from one of the boxes at the TSBD or from the paper bag, or couldn't it.

Besides, you can't place much value on what investigators told the media in those earlier days. As you can read in the article they also claimed that a parrafin test showed that Oswald had fired a weapen recently, when in fact it didn't show that at all.

Btw it's quite comical to read that, in a article full of information about the evidence, Wade says he refuses to discuss the evidence because it would make it harder to find a jury.... Go figure

[Charles Collins]

We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said.

A print? How do you know this is the print on the index card that was allegedly taken from the rifle?

It could have been a print from one of the boxes at the TSBD or from the paper bag, or couldn't it.

Besides, you can't place much value on what investigators told the media in those earlier days. As you can read in the article they also claimed that a parrafin test showed that Oswald had fired a weapen recently, when in fact it didn't show that at all.

Btw it's quite comical to read that, in a article full of information about the evidence, Wade says he refuses to discuss the evidence because it would make it harder to find a jury.... Go figure

You are taking one sentence out of context. They are clearly talking about the rifle, not the boxes or bag.

The point is that this claim by John appears to be in error:

...There is no known mention of this palmprint by Wade or anyone else until after Oswald's death.

And your "explanation" of why you think John's above claim is even relevant, which didn't make any sense to begin with, appears to be in error also:

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

[Martin Weidmann]

You are taking one sentence out of context. They are clearly talking about the rifle, not the boxes or bag.

The point is that this claim by John appears to be in error:

And your "explanation" of why you think John's above claim is even relevant, which didn't make any sense to begin with, appears to be in error also:

You are taking one sentence out of context.

No, I don't. There is nothing to be taken out of context in this sentence; "We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said."

They are clearly talking about the rifle, not the boxes or bag.

Nothing clearly about it. You are jumping to a conclusion not justified by the evidence. All the investigator said was that they had a print that matches Oswald. There is no mention of where the print came from or the rifle for that matter.

The point is that this claim by John appears to be in error:

Wrong again. It would only "appear to be in error" is one first accepts that your flawed jump to a conclusion is correct. Since it isn't, John's claim isn't in error.

And your "explanation" of why you think John's above claim is even relevant, which didn't make any sense to begin with, appears to be in error also:

And wrong again. All you've got is Wade claiming "from memory", months after Oswald's death, that Fritz told him about the print prior to Oswald's death. The mere fact that Wade claims it doesn't make it so. There is no contemporary record of such a conversation. It's just one more instance where law enforcement (i.e. investigators and prosecutors) is making claims about non existent vital evidence.

What is funny though is that the article clearly shows that Wade was involved in the case from day 1. He may not have been an investigator, but he was there and discussing with the media the evidence he, in the same article, said he wouldn't discuss for fear of contaminating the jury pool.

[Charles Collins]

You are taking one sentence out of context.

No, I don't. There is nothing to be taken out of context in this sentence; "We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said."

They are clearly talking about the rifle, not the boxes or bag.

Nothing clearly about it. You are jumping to a conclusion not justified by the evidence. All the investigator said was that they had a print that matches Oswald.
There is no mention of where the print came from or the rifle for that matter.

The point is that this claim by John appears to be in error:

Wrong again. It would only "appear to be in error" is one first accepts that your flawed jump to a conclusion is correct. Since it isn't, John's claim isn't in error.

And your "explanation" of why you think John's above claim is even relevant, which didn't make any sense to begin with, appears to be in error also:

And wrong again. All you've got is Wade claiming "from memory", months after Oswald's death, that Fritz told him about the print prior to Oswald's death. The mere fact that Wade claims it doesn't make it so. There is no contemporary record of such a conversation. It's just one more instance where law enforcement (i.e. investigators and prosecutors) is making claims about non existent vital evidence.

What is funny though is that the article clearly shows that Wade was involved in the case from day 1. He may not have been an investigator, but he was there and discussing with the media the evidence he, in the same article, said he wouldn't discuss for fear of contaminating the jury pool.

No, I don't. There is nothing to be taken out of context in this sentence; "We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said."


You are taking that sentence out of context of the rest of the article. The preceding sentence is:

Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the triple underpass.

Put the sentences in context with each other and the meaning is clear.