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

[Martin Weidmann]

Hi Martin, this isn't a courtroom, all members are trying to do, need to do, is provide credible reasons why he/she does or does not accept certain evidence and witness statements. Surely, in making such an assessment a witnesses reputation must go a long way in evaluating that credibility. I can understand why many don't accept the statements of certain police officers for example, it's because they believe their reputation or credibility is lacking. But, there are some, both for and against Oswald, whose reputation only strengthens their creds. I would certainly place Aynsworth withing this category, the mans a very highly respected journalist whose inside knowledge of the case far exceeds most others, to my knowledge, he's never been shown to have lied or deliberately misled. I don't believe Charles believes Aynesworth "just because he believes him" as you put it. I think Charles has evaluated Aynesworth's reputation, determined his credibility to be strong and has posted accordingly. As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided? Personally, I believe it isn't.

Hi Denis,

Fair points.

As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided?

My argument is not that Aynsworth lacks credibility, because he certainly doesn't.

But Charles's trust in him is in this particular case indeed misguided because, regardless of what Aynsworth remembers or has written in his notes, the combined sworn WC testimony of Latona and Day shows conclusively that Wade could not have been told on 11/22/63 about a palmprint found on the rifle matching to Oswald because an index card with that palmprint on it did not surfice until 11/26/63 and was not examined (by Latona) until 11/29/63. I believe Aynsworth would be the first to see and accept this conflict with his memory.

Even the WC lawyer Eisenberg, who took Latona's testimony, was aware there had been "inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?". Aynsworth simply wrote down what Henry Wade told him from memory and used that in his book. But that doesn't automatically mean the information he obtained from Wade was completely correct and the Latona and Day testimony shows conclusively it couldn't have been.

So my argument is not with Aynsworth. My argument is with Charles who is using Aynsworth's book and notes as somehow proof that what Wade claimed is true, despite the fact that hard evidence shows it couldn't have been.

[Martin Weidmann]

That is your opinion. It’s unreasonable.

I brought the newspaper article up to counter the claim that “no one mentioned the palm print until after Oswald was dead,” and “there’s no good reason to believe that it existed before Oswald’s death.” The top police officials were aware of it, the district attorney was told of it, and someone leaked it to the newspaper reporters who put it on the front page.

Your denials of everything that doesn’t support your theories are unreasonable and makes you look ridiculous. To think that the WC got everything wrong is absurd. Yet you lamely attempt to shoot down every aspect with your unreasonable opinions. I asked and was told that there is no common ground on which both sides agree. What is the point of arguing with that nonsense?

To you anything I say is "unreasonable" simply because it doesn't agree with your opinion.

I brought the newspaper article up to counter the claim that “no one mentioned the palm print until after Oswald was dead,” and “there’s no good reason to believe that it existed before Oswald’s death.” The top police officials were aware of it, the district attorney was told of it, and someone leaked it to the newspaper reporters who put it on the front page.

This is not what that article shows. You have concocted this narrative all by yourself.


Your denials of everything that doesn’t support your theories are unreasonable and makes you look ridiculous.

Again, you have it backwards. It's you who denies the WC testimony of Latona and Day because it does not support your theory.


To think that the WC got everything wrong is absurd.

What makes you think I think that?


Yet you lamely attempt to shoot down every aspect with your unreasonable opinions. I asked and was told that there is no common ground on which both sides agree. What is the point of arguing with that nonsense?

So, the WC testimony of Latona and Day showing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no match of the palmprint with Oswald on 11/22/63 is nonsense but a vague quote from an anonymous soucre in a newspaper article isn't?

[Denis Pointing]

Hi Denis,

Fair points.

As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided?

My argument is not that Aynsworth lacks credibility, because he certainly doesn't.

But Charles's trust in him is in this particular case indeed misguided because, regardless of what Aynsworth remembers or has written in his notes, the combined sworn WC testimony of Latona and Day shows conclusively that Wade could not have been told on 11/22/63 about a palmprint found on the rifle matching to Oswald because an index card with that palmprint on it did not surfice until 11/26/63 and was not examined (by Latona) until 11/29/63. I believe Aynsworth would be the first to see and accept this conflict with his memory.

Even the WC lawyer Eisenberg, who took Latona's testimony, was aware there had been "inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?". Aynsworth simply wrote down what Henry Wade told him from memory and used that in his book. But that doesn't automatically mean the information he obtained from Wade was completely correct and the Latona and Day testimony shows conclusively it couldn't have been.

So my argument is not with Aynsworth. My argument is with Charles who is using Aynsworth's book and notes as somehow proof that what Wade claimed is true, despite the fact that hard evidence shows it couldn't have been.

You also make some very fair points Martin. I wonder how Charles would feel about contacting Aynsworth again and clarifying these points, especially the date discrepancy. Better still, perhaps e-mail your post to him..with your permission, of course. It would be good to get this resolved. Thank you.

[Charles Collins]

To you anything I say is "unreasonable" simply because it doesn't agree with your opinion.

I brought the newspaper article up to counter the claim that “no one mentioned the palm print until after Oswald was dead,” and “there’s no good reason to believe that it existed before Oswald’s death.” The top police officials were aware of it, the district attorney was told of it, and someone leaked it to the newspaper reporters who put it on the front page.

This is not what that article shows. You have concocted this narrative all by yourself.


Your denials of everything that doesn’t support your theories are unreasonable and makes you look ridiculous.

Again, you have it backwards. It's you who denies the WC testimony of Latona and Day because it does not support your theory.


To think that the WC got everything wrong is absurd.

What makes you think I think that?


Yet you lamely attempt to shoot down every aspect with your unreasonable opinions. I asked and was told that there is no common ground on which both sides agree. What is the point of arguing with that nonsense?

So, the WC testimony of Latona and Day showing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no match of the palmprint with Oswald on 11/22/63 is nonsense but a vague quote from an anonymous soucre in a newspaper article isn't?

The words of Wade quoted in Aynesworth’s book include the word “tentative.” Therefore your claim (as usual) makes no sense. And the newspaper article includes the words “little doubt.” Which could also suggest the match was tentative. The tentative match was turned into a positive match  later by the FBI. Why do you refuse to understand this?

[Thomas Graves]

Hi Denis,

Fair points.

As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided?

My argument is not that Aynsworth lacks credibility, because he certainly doesn't.

But Charles's trust in him is in this particular case indeed misguided because, regardless of what Aynsworth remembers or has written in his notes, the combined sworn WC testimony of Latona and Day shows conclusively that Wade could not have been told on 11/22/63 about a palmprint found on the rifle matching to Oswald because an index card with that palmprint on it did not surfice until 11/26/63 and was not examined (by Latona) until 11/29/63. I believe Aynsworth would be the first to see and accept this conflict with his memory.

Even the WC lawyer Eisenberg, who took Latona's testimony, was aware there had been "inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?". Aynsworth simply wrote down what Henry Wade told him from memory and used that in his book. But that doesn't automatically mean the information he obtained from Wade was completely correct and the Latona and Day testimony shows conclusively it couldn't have been.

So my argument is not with Aynsworth. My argument is with Charles who is using Aynsworth's book and notes as somehow proof that what Wade claimed is true, despite the fact that hard evidence shows it couldn't have been.

How does the index card's not surfacing until 11/26 preclude Wade's being told the results before that by somebody?

-- MWT   

[Martin Weidmann]

How does the index card's not surfacing until 11/26 preclude Wade's being told the results before that by somebody?

-- MWT   

How does the index card's not surfacing until 11/26 preclude Wade's being told the results before that by somebody?

Because there were no results prior to 11/29.

Day testified that he after he lifted the palmprint from the rifle he was told not to proceed any further. Day, who was the only one who knew and had access to the card, never examined the palmprint, so (and this is what Charles refuses to accept) there couldn't have been a match of any kind with Oswald on 11/22.

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.

[Charles Collins]

How does the index card's not surfacing until 11/26 preclude Wade's being told the results before that by somebody?

Because there were no results prior to 11/29.

Day testified that he after he lifted the palmprint from the rifle he was told not to proceed any further. Day, who was the only one who knew and had access to the card, never examined the palmprint, so (and this is what Charles refuses to accept) there couldn't have been a match of any kind with Oswald on 11/22.

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.

Day, who was the only one who knew and had access to the card, never examined the palmprint, so (and this is what Charles refuses to accept) there couldn't have been a match of any kind with Oswald on 11/22.


Day briefly examined the palm print on 11/22/63 and felt sure it was Oswald's. He had put it aside and was setting up to do a timed photograph of the palm print on the rifle when he was interrupted. And he told both Curry and Fritz that he had a tentative match. You can purchase and examine the oral history interview of Day in 1996 (page 19) if you choose not to believe me. Due to copyright agreement I cannot post the interview here. Sixth Floor Museum - Oral History Collection - Law Enforcement https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement. Look for J.C. Day, cost for the transcription via email is $5.

[Martin Weidmann]

Day, who was the only one who knew and had access to the card, never examined the palmprint, so (and this is what Charles refuses to accept) there couldn't have been a match of any kind with Oswald on 11/22.


Day briefly examined the palm print on 11/22/63 and felt sure it was Oswald's. He had put it aside and was setting up to do a timed photograph of the palm print on the rifle when he was interrupted. And he told both Curry and Fritz that he had a tentative match. You can purchase and examine the oral history interview of Day in 1996 (page 19) if you choose not to believe me. Due to copyright agreement I cannot post the interview here. Sixth Floor Museum - Oral History Collection - Law Enforcement https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement. Look for J.C. Day, cost for the transcription via email is $5.

Day briefly examined the palm print on 11/22/63 and felt sure it was Oswald's. He had put it aside and was setting up to do a timed photograph of the palm print on the rifle when he was interrupted. And he told both Curry and Fritz that he had a tentative match.

That's not what he said in his WC testimony and frankly I don't believe a word of it, for one simple reason; tentative or not, it would have been a smoking gun and given the fact that all sorts of people were providing information to the media it would have been all over the news, but it never was!


You can purchase and examine the oral history interview of Day in 1996 (page 19) if you choose not to believe me. Due to copyright agreement I cannot post the interview here. Sixth Floor Museum - Oral History Collection - Law Enforcement https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement. Look for J.C. Day, cost for the transcription via email is $5.

First of all, I have no intention of buying anything from people who not only promote a one sided version of events but also want to make money with it.

Secondly, an interview 33 years after the fact? How convenient.... and it never occurrs to you that someboy like Day could use the oral history interview to actually rewrite history and his part in it? Why did he not say any of this in his WC testimony?

Do you remember that Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book, did not mention it at all and in fact said: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand."? Kind of a strange thing to say if in fact - as you claim - Day told him about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63