And again I provided what he said about why he didn't process the palmprint further.
This is getting tiresome…. You simply can not give a plausible explanation for the obvious descrepancy between your claims. You claim Day (1) didn't process the rifle further because he was told to stop processing and (2) didn't continue processing the palmprint because he was told not to do so, but - despite the fact that he never processed the palmprint any further - you claim he just wasn't told both things at the same time. Don't you understand just how idiotic this sounds?
Yes, that's the next defense, when you are losing the debate and have no arguments left
Your desperation is becoming more apparent every time you call my opinions nonsensical without being able to explain what is nonsensical about it.
Your opinion that if you feel Day's assessment was correct tells me nothing. Nobody gets ever charged with murder based upon a "feeling". And you are making a complete fool of yourself by arguing that they were confident that Day wouldn't tell them if he wasn't sure it was Oswald's print. That is exactly what Day 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.
So, Day himself says he wouldn't say a certain print belonged to a certain person unless he was absolutely sure. You nevertheless present the baseless claim that he told Fritz and Curry (who told Wade) that he had a "tentative" match and than you claim that they charged Oswald with murder because they were sure Day would not have told them if he wasn't sure…..
I'm beginning to wonder what must be going on in your head because this is utter madness!
Some more of your nonsensical opinions. When I stop laughing we can let an "impartial jury" decide who they believe. The people who were there, or your nonsense.
What "impartial jury" would that be? Is this an example of what goes on in your confused head? Or is it just another example of your trying to get out of a discussion for lack of sound arguments?
Btw you are not providing a verbatim record of what the people who were there said! You are giving us your opinions about the meaning (according to you) of what they said.
This is getting tiresome…. You simply can not give a plausible explanation for the obvious descrepancy between your claims. You claim Day (1) didn't process the rifle further because he was told to stop processing and (2) didn't continue processing the palmprint because he was told not to do so, but - despite the fact that he never processed the palmprint any further - you claim he just wasn't told both things at the same time. Don't you understand just how idiotic this sounds?I have provided Day's words. They conflict with your assumption that the WC testimony indicates he was told to stop processing
everything. It does not say that. Day's words in his oral history interviews clarifies that he was told to stop processing the rifle on 11/22/63. In the oral history interview he doesn't say anything about not
getting back to checking the palmprint until he is talking about coming back to work and the rifle had already been returned. (And I think his choice of the words (that I underlined) is another indication that he had already started checking the palmprint and was interrupted before he could finish.) It appears to me that he did his brief examination of the palmprint after he lifted it and before the rifle was turned over to the FBI. Fritz, Bill Alexander, Jim Allen, and Forrest Sorrels leave city hall to discuss the evidence and eat at Majestic Steak House around 9:00 PM. Fritz said he wanted to
wait until they developed the firearm and fingerprint evidence before they file the charges in the assassination. They decide to wait an hour or so. The assassination charges are filed against Oswald at 11:26 PM. The rifle is released to the FBI about 11:45 PM. References for what was said at the Majestic Steak House are: Bonner, Investigation of a Homicide, pp.152–154; Telephone interview of William Alexander by Vincent Bugliosi on December 12, 2000.
Your opinion that if you feel Day's assessment was correct tells me nothing. Nobody gets ever charged with murder based upon a "feeling". And you are making a complete fool of yourself by arguing that they were confident that Day wouldn't tell them if he wasn't sure it was Oswald's print. That is exactly what Day 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.The FBI fingerprint experts and independent experts have all confirmed Day's assessment was correct. Day is describing a positive match, not a tentative match. And
again, he is discussing the fingerprints, not the palmprint. So it isn't even relevant. The last line is relevant. That is what a tentative match is. Although I doubt that Day would use that term because it has the potential to cause misunderstandings, of which you are apparently a perfect example.
So, Day himself says he wouldn't say a certain print belonged to a certain person unless he was absolutely sure.Yes! However,this is describing a positive match, not a tentative match. With a tentative match he would likely say it
appeared to belong to a certain person.
You nevertheless present the baseless claim that he told Fritz and Curry (who told Wade) that he had a "tentative" match and than you claim that they charged Oswald with murder because they were sure Day would not have told them if he wasn't sure….I don't believe that I said Day told them he had a "tentative match." I believe I said he would have been careful not to use that particular term. It was Wade's quoted words that included that term. I believe they had enough confidence in Day's brief expert assessment (although it still needed further work to completely document it and double check for errors before he would declare it a positive match) along with the other evidence to charge Oswald with the assassination.
What "impartial jury" would that be? Is this an example of what goes on in your confused head? Or is it just another example of your trying to get out of a discussion for lack of sound arguments? It is a polite (cryptic) way of saying that we are going in circles and arguing the same things over again and I think it is time to let this rest. Let whoever might be reading this (the jury, the impartial part is my wishful thinking, but you never know some newbie might actually be impartial) make up their own minds. I don't believe that you and I are never going to agree on anything whatsoever.
Btw you are not providing a verbatim record of what the people who were there said! You are giving us your opinions about the meaning (according to you) of what they saidI have tried to keep it verbatim as much as possible. I do add my opinions but I don't believe that they are mixed in with the quotes. It should be apparent where I have added my opinion, usually at the end. As far as the oral history quotes I have changed the perspective (ie: I to he) or some other insignificant aspect because of the copyright agreement. Again, get yourself a copy if you don't believe me.
