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

[Martin Weidmann]

So, how the investigator could have been talking about the print on the index card is totally beyond me.

The words were written by reporters who were there. They need no explanation from me. You elected to try to twist them into something that fits what you believe. I have shown you your mistake of not keeping the context. Apparently a lot of things are beyond you.

The words were written by reporters who were there.

Indeed, they wrote down what the investigators told them. And an investigator said they had Oswald's print. That was all he said.

You then turned it so that the investigator somehow was talking about the print on the index card, but you have no evidence for that, which is why you keep going on about the context when there actually is no context, since you can't even know for sure if the "informed sources" include the investigator who mentioned a print matching Oswald.

The first part;

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.

just expresses the opinion of "informed sources". They used the words "held the rifle" but they could just as easily have said "we are pretty sure Oswald did it"

The second part;

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

is just a comment made by an investigator being reproduced.

A reader, ignorant of the facts, might combine the two remarks and conclude they are linked, and it could well be that the writer of the article intended just that, but such a conclusion, and thus your position, is complete BS, because it ignores that the FBI did not match Oswald to the print on the index card until 5 days after the article was published.

Unless he was psychic, there is no way the investigator who made the remark about the print could have known on the 24th that it was Oswald's print on the index card as that wasn't determined until the 29th. QED he couldn't have been talking about the print on the index card!

This is not rocket science so why don't you get it?

[Charles Collins]

The words were written by reporters who were there.

Indeed, they wrote down what the investigators told them. And an investigator said they had Oswald's print. That was all he said.

You then turned it so that the investigator somehow was talking about the print on the index card, but you have no evidence for that, which is why you keep going on about the context when there actually is no context, since you can't even know for sure if the "informed sources" include the investigator who mentioned a print matching Oswald.

The first part;

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.

just expresses the opinion of "informed sources". They used the words "held the rifle" but they could just as easily have said "we are pretty sure Oswald did it"

The second part;

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

is just a comment made by an investigator being reproduced.

A reader, ignorant of the facts, might combine the two remarks and conclude they are linked, and it could well be that the writer of the article intended just that, but such a conclusion, and thus your position, is complete BS, because it ignores that the FBI did not match Oswald to the print on the index card until 5 days after the article was published.

Unless he was psychic, there is no way the investigator who made the remark about the print could have known on the 24th that it was Oswald's print on the index card as that wasn't determined until the 29th. QED he couldn't have been talking about the print on the index card!

This is not rocket science so why don't you get it?

Unless he was psychic, there is no way the investigator who made the remark about the print could have known on the 24th that it was Oswald's print on the index card as that wasn't determined until the 29th. QED he couldn't have been talking about the print on the index card!


No need for psychic abilities. Wade said he was told on 11/22/63  that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's. The informed sources were apparently basing their statement on a tentative expert analysis (which was only tentative because it was interrupted before being finalized) that was confirmed by independent experts days later.

Again my point is to show that the palm print was mentioned to others before Oswald's death. This isn't rocket science. Why don't you get it?

[Martin Weidmann]

Unless he was psychic, there is no way the investigator who made the remark about the print could have known on the 24th that it was Oswald's print on the index card as that wasn't determined until the 29th. QED he couldn't have been talking about the print on the index card!


No need for psychic abilities. Wade said he was told on 11/22/63  that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's. The informed sources were apparently basing their statement on a tentative expert analysis (which was only tentative because it was interrupted before being finalized) that was confirmed by independent experts days later.

Again my point is to show that the palm print was mentioned to others before Oswald's death. This isn't rocket science. Why don't you get it?

Wade said he was told on 11/22/63  that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's

Now you are changing the subject back to Wade.....

Where did Wade say that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's?

They had no print match on 11/22/63 to Oswald or anybody else!


The informed sources were apparently basing their statement on a tentative expert analysis (which was only tentative because it was interrupted before being finalized) that was confirmed by independent experts days later.

BS there was no such thing as a tentative expert analysis.

Again my point is to show that the palm print was mentioned to others before Oswald's death.

Sure it is, yet you have no evidence to support such a claim so you are making stuff up as you go along....

[Charles Collins]

Wade said he was told on 11/22/63  that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's

Now you are changing the subject back to Wade.....

Where did Wade say that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's?

Thry had no print match on 11-22-63 to Oswald or anybody else!


The informed sources were apparently basing their statement on a tentative expert analysis (which was only tentative because it was interrupted before being finalized) that was confirmed by independent experts days later.

BS there was no such thing as a tentative expert analysis.

Again my point is to show that the palm print was mentioned to others before Oswald's death.

Sure it is, yet you have no evidence to support such a claim so you are making stuff up as you go along....

Where did Wade say that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's?

Direct quote of Wade in “Witness to History” by Hugh Aynesworth page 77. - “They had a palm print on the gun, for example, and an expert who tentatively identified it [as Oswald’s].”

[Martin Weidmann]

Where did Wade say that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's?

Direct quote of Wade in “Witness to History” by Hugh Aynesworth page 77. - “They had a palm print on the gun, for example, and an expert who tentatively identified it [as Oswald’s].”

Please stop seeing things that aren't there. Your claim was that Wade was told about the palmprint and a tentative match by an expert on 11/22/63.

Your quote from Aynesworth's book (published in 2013) doesn't show that at all. All it shows is that Wade remembered  that (at some point in time) they had a palm print on the gun which an expert tentatively identified as Oswald, but he doesn't say this was on 11/22/63 as you claimed.

All you have so far is Wade's WC testimony from 1964, a vague quote of an unnamed investigator in a newspaper article and another vague quote of Wade in a book in 2013 and none of it actually supports your claim. Now you can continue using scraps of vague statements and quotes to make up your own version as much as you want, but the actual evidence makes it simply impossible for Wade or anybody else having been informed about the print on the index card on 11/22/63.

We know that Day kept the print to himself until he was ordered to release all the evidence to the FBI on 11/26/63. Had he already made a match of the print with Oswald, he would have had no reason at all to keep it to himself. It would more likely have been all over the media as the proverbial smoking gun. Instead, Day doesn't even mention a match to the FBI! Latona of the FBI lab received the print on 11/29/63 and it was he who made the tentative match.

Bottom line; your story simply does not compute with the timeline of known events.

[Charles Collins]

Please stop seeing things that aren't there. Your claim was that Wade was told about the palmprint and a tentative match by an expert on 11/22/63.

Your quote from Aynesworth's book doesn't show that at all. All it shows that Wade remembered that (at some point in time) they had a palm print on the gun which an expert tentatively identified as Oswald, but he doesn't say this was on 11/22/63 as you claimed.

Now you can continue using scraps of vague statements and quotes to make up your own version as much as you want, but the actual evidence makes it simply impossible for Wade or anybody else having been informed about the print on the index card on 11/22/63.

Day kept the print to himself until he was ordered to release all the evidence to the FBI on 11/26/63. Had he already made a match of the print with Oswald, he would have had no reason at all to keep it to himself. It would more likely have been all over the media as the proverbial smoking gun. Instead, Day mentions nothing about a match to the FBI. Latona of the FBI lab received the print on 11/29/63 and it was he who made the tentative match.

Bottom line; your story simply does not compute with the timeline of known events.

You are dead wrong. Aynesworth is describing Wade’s activities on 11/22/63. The complete Wade quote reads “The investigators told me that night they had evidence against Oswald that was stronger than it turned out to be. They had a palm print on the gun, for example, and an expert who tentatively identified it [as Oswald’s]. But I don’t think the FBI ever did identify that palm print.”

[Martin Weidmann]

You are dead wrong. Aynesworth is describing Wade’s activities on 11/22/63. The complete Wade quote reads “The investigators told me that night they had evidence against Oswald that was stronger than it turned out to be. They had a palm print on the gun, for example, and an expert who tentatively identified it [as Oswald’s]. But I don’t think the FBI ever did identify that palm print.”

Aynesworth's book was published in 2013. 50 years after the actual event and 12 years after Wade died at age 86.

So where did the "quote" come from?   

Btw;

Mr. EISENBERG. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?
Mr. LATONA. This exhibit Or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you receive this item?
Mr. LATONA. I received this item November 29, 1963.

<>

Mr. EISENBERG. Who did you get this exhibit, this lift from?
Mr. LATONA. This lift was referred to us by the FBI Dallas office.
Mr. EISENBERG. And were you told anything about its origin?
Mr. LATONA. We were advised that this print had been developed by the Dallas Police Department, and, as the lift itself indicates, from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, may I say for the record that at a subsequent point we will have the testimony of the police officer of the Dallas police who developed this print, and made the lift; and I believe that the print was taken from underneath the portion of the barrel which is covered by the stock. Now, did you attempt to identify this print which shows on the lift Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you succeed in making identification?
Mr. LATONA. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.
Mr. EISENBERG. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle, but several days later by virtue of the receipt of this lift, which did not come with the weapon originally, the FBI did succeed in identifying a print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?
Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.


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.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.

Now tell me, who was the expert that made the tentative match with Oswald on 11/22/63

[Charles Collins]

Aynesworth's book was published in 2013. 50 years after the actual event and 12 years after Wade died at age 86.

So where did the "quote" come from?

Aynesworth is still around, ask him. The quote is inside quotation marks. So it appears to be a direct quote of Wade.