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

[Charles Collins]

No it wasn't. There was one mention of a print match in a newspaper article which does not even mention the palmprint.

Nope.. they present the WC version of the "facts"

Why did Day not mention the "tentative match of the palmprint to Oswald" in his WC testimony? Why did he say he stopped processing after having lifted the print from the rifle? Did day lie in his WC testimony?

He made some decisions during that weekend that a lot of people have second guessed and criticized.

Why do you comment when you cay you will reserve comment?

No it wasn't. There was one mention of a print match in a newspaper article which does not even mention the palmprint.

You are conveniently leaving out: "...the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle...".

Nope.. they present the WC version of the "facts"

They would disagree with your opinion. Gary Mack was a CT.

Why did he say he stopped processing after having lifted the print from the rifle? Did day lie in his WC testimony?

No he didn't lie. You conveniently left out the rest of the sentence. The complete sentence is: "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." [The word "it' is referring to the rifle. Day is talking about no further processing of the rifle.]
The next sentence is: "I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun." [He is still talking about processing the rifle, not the print. The palm print was found on the bottom of the barrel further towards the muzzle. He had already partially processed it and was setting up to take a photograph when he was told to stop.]

This is a typical example of you taking something out of context and trying to spin it into something that it is not. It is no wonder that I say that I am not interested in you nonsensical opinions. You are wasting my time.

[Martin Weidmann]

No it wasn't. There was one mention of a print match in a newspaper article which does not even mention the palmprint.

You are conveniently leaving out: "...the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle...".

What "evidence"... they had collected hardly anything when the article was published and they most certainly had not examined any of it.

Nope.. they present the WC version of the "facts"

They would disagree with your opinion. Gary Mack was a CT.

I am willing (and have said so before) to consider the possibility that Oswald was a lone gunman and I even feel that some evidence indeed points in that direction.

Does that make me a LN?

Why did he say he stopped processing after having lifted the print from the rifle? Did day lie in his WC testimony?

No he didn't lie. You conveniently left out the rest of the sentence. The complete sentence is: "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." [The word "it' is referring to the rifle. Day is talking about no further processing of the rifle.]

The next sentence is: "I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun." [He is still talking about processing the rifle, not the print. The palm print was found on the bottom of the barrel further towards the muzzle. He had already partially processed it and was setting up to take a photograph when he was told to stop.

Now that's a strange interpretation. Yes, Day was indeed working on the rifle when he was told to stop processing, but they did not tell him only to stop working on the rifle. He was told to stop processing the evidence (which the rifle was part of) because it (the evidence) had to be turned over to the FBI, which is exactly what happened.

If, as you claim "The word "it' is referring to the rifle. Day is talking about no further processing of the rifle." then why didn't Day continue with processing the palmprint on the index card? Why did he do nothing with it and held it back for four days?


Here's a bit of interesting testimony;

Mr. BELIN. What about the lift which has previously been marked as Commission Exhibit 637?
Mr. DAY. About what?
Mr. BELIN. When did you turn that over to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. I released that to them on November 26, 1963. I did not release this----

Mr. BELIN. You are referring to Commission Exhibit 637?
Mr. DAY. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Is there any particular reason why this was not released on the 22d?
Mr. DAY. The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints. Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the remaining traces of the powder you had when you got the lift, Exhibit 637, is that what you mean by the lift of the remaining print on the gun?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Actually it was dried ridges on there. There were traces of ridges still on the gun barrel.
Mr. BELIN. Can you tell the circumstances under which you sent Commission Exhibit No. 637to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. We released certain evidence to the FBI, including the gun, on November 22. It was returned to us on November 24. Then on November 26 we received instructions to send back to the FBI everything that we had.
Mr. BELIN. Did you do that?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; and at that time I sent the lift marked----
Mr. BELIN. 637.
Mr. DAY. Yes. The gun was sent back again, and all of the other evidence that I had, including cartons from Texas Bookstore, and various other items, a rather lengthy list.

and some more;

Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.

Kinda destroys your claim that Day matched (tentatively or not) the palmprint to Oswald on 11/22/63

This is a typical example of you taking something out of context and trying to spin it into something that it is not. It is no wonder that I say that I am not interested in you nonsensical opinions. You are wasting my time.

Actually, Day's own testimony proves that it is you who is taking things out of context and trying to spin it.

Day testifies that he was ordered to stop processing the evidence, that he did not match Oswald to any prints and that he held back the index card for four days.

You, based on a vague newspaper article which does not even mention the palm print as such and the dubious memory of Henry Wade make claims that contradict Day's testimony and you prefer an interview of 33 years after the fact to maintain that Day made a tentative match, when the man clearly states that for him there is no such thing as a tentative match.

Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints.

It seems it is you who is wasting everybody's time

[Denis Pointing]

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

I haven't read that book. So I will reserve comment on what is in it until after I have read all of it. It does seem a strange thing for him to say. He made some decisions during that weekend that a lot of people have second guessed and criticized.

It's not really so strange Charles. The clue is in the sentence "Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book" I know it sounds cynical but remember; Conspiracy books sell better than non-conspiracy books. Yet another vulture out to make a few $?

[Charles Collins]

It's not really so strange Charles. The clue is in the sentence "Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book" I know it sounds cynical but remember; Conspiracy books sell better than non-conspiracy books. Yet another vulture out to make a few $?

Is this one considered to be a CT book?

[Denis Pointing]

Is this one considered to be a CT book?

Oh yeah, definitely, 100%. And to be precise, as John Agee pointed out, Curry doesn't actually say that in his book. Curry's said at a press conference announcing the release of his book.
Curry made the following statement in a second pre-release interview; "I think there's a possibility that one [shot] could have come from in front [of the limousine]. We've never, we've never been able to prove that, but just in my mind and by the direction of his blood and brain from the president from one of the shots, it would just seem that it would have to [have] been fired from the front rather than behind. I can't say that I could swear that I believe that it was one man and one man alone. I think there's a possibility there could have been another man." Was Curry genuine or trying to make money out of the assassination? Everyone can make their own mind up on that one.

[Martin Weidmann]

Oh yeah, definitely, 100%. And to be precise, as John Agee pointed out, Curry doesn't actually say that in his book. Curry's said at a press conference announcing the release of his book.

So, what exactly is the problem?

Is it that he was trying to sell a book?

Or is the problem that he, as an inside man, publicly expressed doubts about the findings of the investigation?

[John Mytton]

So, what exactly is the problem?

Is it that he was trying to sell a book?

Or is the problem that he, as an inside man, publicly expressed doubts about the findings of the investigation?

Here is some pages from Curry's book and Curry "as the man on the inside" tells us that they were satisfied that they had enough evidence to charge Oswald with the murder of Tippit.







JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Here is some pages from Curry's book and Curry "as the man on the inside" tells us that they were satisfied that they had enough evidence to charge Oswald with the murder of Tippit.

JohnM

But we are not discussing the murder of Tippit….

Btw I would be interested to know who exactly made the decision that "they" had enough evidence to charge Oswald with Tippit's murder….

The last time I looked it wasn't the police who made such a decision, so who did?