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

[Denis Pointing]

Denis, I think the public parading (and associated press questioning) of Oswald was confined to day one. I believe after that there was some deal struck between the DPD and press that allowed them to see him being moved but no questions were to be asked.

Hi Colin, really? I didn't know that. Thank you   

[Denis Pointing]

He said it, on film, to a reporter in a hallway, iirc.

(Excuse me if someone has already posted this -- I haven't read through the whole thread yet.)

-- MWT 

Yes, you're right Thomas, whilst he was on his way to the first lineup. It wasn't actually caught on film though, was it?

[Thomas Graves]

Yes, you're right Thomas, whilst he was on his way to the first lineup. It wasn't actually caught on film though, was it?

Denis,

I believe I remember watching and hearing him say this on film.  I seem to remember a slightly perplexed/frustrated look on his face.

As I recall, he wasn't walking anywhere at the time.  He was standing still, surrounded by a group of reporters in a hallway.  IIRC

Caveat:  I'm probably "just making things up," again.

-- MWT 

[Thomas Graves]

Oswald's rifle was discovered on the 6th floor, how did it get there?



JohnM

l don't know if anyone's ever asked this question, but were't there any other cheapo rifles available back then that could have been broken down and fit into a 30 inch, or so, bag?

Not that it matters, actually.

-- MWT 

[Charles Collins]

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

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?

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

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

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.

No strange interpretation necessary. As I said earlier it is you taking a partial sentence out of context and trying to spin it.  He was told to stop processing the rifle. Here are his words from the 2006 oral history from the sixth floor museum: "...a few minutes later I get another order, don't do anything else to the gun. And Vince Drain will be there around 11:30 to pick it up... I definitely remember telling Drain there is a palm print on the underside of the barrel... I didn't turn the palm print in. They said give them the rifle, I gave them the rifle..."

And about the palm print: "...I looked at it and was pretty sure it was his. But I wanted to look at it some more before I said definitely was his palm.

He says the same things in his 1996 oral history interview.

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

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.

No it doesn't, I think you are confusing a tentative match vs a positive match. And trying to make it look like he said something he didn't. I am not an expert on fingerprinting but here is an article that includes this statement:
Aug 31, 1990 - Here, a fingerprint examiner verifies a tentative match between the thumbprints of a purchaser with those of a prior offender, in order to establish positive identification

https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1991/9141/914104.PDF

As I understand it, in fingerprint comparisons the examiner looks for points of similarity. As each point is identified and documented, the likelihood of the prints being of two different persons becomes smaller and smaller. After enough points (varies) are identified, so that the examiner is satisfied they are the same, it is declared a positive match. As the process takes place the examiner essentially goes from: "they could be the same," to: "they probably are the same," to: "they are almost certainly the same," to: "they are definitely the same, to the exclusion of all others". It is a tedious and time consuming process, and it is preferred to go back and take a second look with fresh eyes and mind to make sure there are no errors before making the positive match statement. I believe that Day was around the almost certainly stage but needed more time to complete the work. Whether you want to call that a tentative match or not I really don't care. But that is what the evidence shows. And then we are only arguing semantics.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

No strange interpretation necessary. As I said earlier it is you taking a partial sentence out of context and trying to spin it.  He was told to stop processing the rifle. Here are his words from the 2006 oral history from the sixth floor museum: "...a few minutes later I get another order, don't do anything else to the gun. And Vince Drain will be there around 11:30 to pick it up... I definitely remember telling Drain there is a palm print on the underside of the barrel... I didn't turn the palm print in. They said give them the rifle, I gave them the rifle..."

And about the palm print: "...I looked at it and was pretty sure it was his. But I wanted to look at it some more before I said definitely was his palm.

He says the same things in his 1996 oral history interview.

Wow... and then you say I am spinning things. No, he was not ordered to stop processing the rifle. That's what you make of it, based on what he said decades later, but it is not what he said in his WC testimony.

In fact he was simply told "to stop processing" and it is beyond obvious (to me) that applies to all the evidence and not just one particular item.

As I said earlier it is you taking a partial sentence out of context and trying to spin it.

Please be as precise as possible and give me an example of where I have done this?

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

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.

No it doesn't, I think you are confusing a tentative match vs a positive match. And trying to make it look like he said something he didn't. I am not an expert on fingerprinting but here is an article that includes this statement:
Aug 31, 1990 - Here, a fingerprint examiner verifies a tentative match between the thumbprints of a purchaser with those of a prior offender, in order to establish positive identification

https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1991/9141/914104.PDF

As I understand it, in fingerprint comparisons the examiner looks for points of similarity. As each point is identified and documented, the likelihood of the prints being of two different persons becomes smaller and smaller. After enough points (varies) are identified, so that the examiner is satisfied they are the same, it is declared a positive match. As the process takes place the examiner essentially goes from: "they could be the same," to: "they probably are the same," to: "they are almost certainly the same," to: "they are definitely the same, to the exclusion of all others". It is a tedious and time consuming process, and it is preferred to go back and take a second look with fresh eyes and mind to make sure there are no errors before making the positive match statement.

How precisely am I trying to make it look like he said something he didn't, when I am quoting verbatim what he said in his WC testimony?

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.

I believe that Day was around the almost certainly stage but needed more time to complete the work. Whether you want to call that a tentative match or not I really don't care. But that is what the evidence shows. And then we are only arguing semantics.

No it is not what the evidence shows. It's - as you say - what you believe!

[Charles Collins]

Wow... and then you say I am spinning things. No, he was not ordered to stop processing the rifle. That's what you make of it, based on what he said decades later, but it is not what he said in his WC testimony.

In fact he was simply told "to stop processing" and it is beyond obvious (to me) that applies to all the evidence and not just one particular item.

As I said earlier it is you taking a partial sentence out of context and trying to spin it.

Please be as precise as possible and give me an example of where I have done this?


How precisely am I trying to make it look like he said something he didn't, when I am quoting verbatim what he said in his WC testimony?

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.

No it is not what the evidence shows. It's - as you say - what you believe!

Please be as precise as possible and give me an example of where I have done this?

I already did. (And Day's 1996 and 2006 oral history interviews confirm this.) You excluding the remainder of the sentence after the word "processing". The word it refers to the rifle, the sentences before and after that one are about the rifle. They had just asked him about how he had processed the rifle and he was telling them. Yet somehow you try to twist it and believe they were somehow talking about the evidence.

How precisely am I trying to make it look like he said something he didn't, when I am quoting verbatim what he said in his WC testimony?

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.


Here is your claim: 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.

First: Day's 1996 and 2006 oral history interviews confirm he was ordered to stop processing the rifle, not the evidence.

Second: Your "any prints" is incorrect. Fingerprints yes, but the palmprint was tentatively matched on 11/22/63. We are discussing the palm print, not the fingerprints. Because everything above McCloy's question [How about the palmprint?] is about the fingerprints, it is not relevant to our discussion of the palmprint.  Day's answer to that question is: 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.  The words "appeared to be" are indicative of a tentative match. The words "fully satisfy myself" are indicative of a positive match.

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

When you remove the irrelevant part, as I indicated above, you are left with this relevant statement:

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.

Nothing there destroys my claim. In fact that is what it is saying. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Please be as precise as possible and give me an example of where I have done this?

I already did. (And Day's 1996 and 2006 oral history interviews confirm this.) You excluding the remainder of the sentence after the word "processing". The word it refers to the rifle, the sentences before and after that one are about the rifle. They had just asked him about how he had processed the rifle and he was telling them. Yet somehow you try to twist it and believe they were somehow talking about the evidence.

How precisely am I trying to make it look like he said something he didn't, when I am quoting verbatim what he said in his WC testimony?

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.


Here is your claim: 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.

First: Day's 1996 and 2006 oral history interviews confirm he was ordered to stop processing the rifle, not the evidence.

Second: Your "any prints" is incorrect. Fingerprints yes, but the palmprint was tentatively matched on 11/22/63. We are discussing the palm print, not the fingerprints. Because everything above McCloy's question [How about the palmprint?] is about the fingerprints, it is not relevant to our discussion of the palmprint.  Day's answer to that question is: 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.  The words "appeared to be" are indicative of a tentative match. The words "fully satisfy myself" are indicative of a positive match.

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

When you remove the irrelevant part, as I indicated above, you are left with this relevant statement:

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.

Nothing there destroys my claim. In fact that is what it is saying.

The words "appeared to be" are indicative of a tentative match.

No they are not. You are trying to make something out of nothing. Day never matched the palmprint he allegedly took from the rifle with Oswald. In order to make a match you need to compare the prints and Day never did that. He never got around to it.

In this instance "appeared to be" was at best indicative of a guess about which palm print it was.

As to your original claim that Henry Wade was told on 11/22/63 about a tentative match with a palmprint you seem to ignore that Day clearly said;

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

So, even if he had made a "tentative" match (quod non) Day would not have said it until he knew for sure. Just one more reason why Wade could not have been told about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63