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

[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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

So you have on one hand "informed sources" who have an opinion about Oswald's guilt and and on the other hand you have an investigator claiming they have Oswald's print. Nowhere is there any kind of link between the rifle and the print.

Now, without speculating or conjecture, you show me where I am wrong by explaining how these statements "in context" mean they are talking about Oswald's print on an idex card.

[Charles Collins]

So you have on one hand "informed sources" who have an opinion about Oswald's guilt and and on the other hand you have an investigator claiming they have Oswald's print. Nowhere is there any kind of link between the rifle and the print.

Now, without speculating or conjecture, you show me where I am wrong by explaining how these statements "in context" mean they are talking about Oswald's print on an idex card.

Read them again. You are leaving out the word evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

Read them again. You are leaving out the word evidence.

I don't have to read them again. It's a newspaper article, for crying out loud, written by a third party who is throwing together all sorts of quotes from unnamed sources. And still there is no connection between the "quotes"

You need to show me, without speculating or conjecture, that I am wrong by explaining how those statements "in context" mean they are talking about Oswald's print on an index card. Can you do that or can't you?

[Charles Collins]

I don't have to read them again. It's a newspaper article, for crying out, written by a third party who is throwing together all sorts of quotes from unnamed sources. And still there is no connection between the "quotes"

You need to show me, without speculating or conjecture, that I am wrong by explaining how those statements "in context" mean they are talking about Oswald's print on an idex card. Can you do that or can't you?

...written by a third party who is throwing together all sorts of quotes from unnamed sources. And still there is no connection between the "quotes"

You’re the one speculating.