Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?

[Walt Cakebread]

Carl Day, Dallas Crime Lab on work done November 22nd ...

    "I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on
     the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear.
     Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than
     try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the
     barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the
     woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of
     the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the
     woodstock loose."

    "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 ...
     They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee
     Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald."

Day's photographs of the trigger-housing prints were confirmed as Oswald's in the 1993 PBS-TV NOVA Frontline program "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" (See also: "JFK First Day Evidence" by Gary Savage, p.120 and "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi, pp.803-04)



(Yet another example of the exemplary unbiased work contributed by the Dallas Police Department.)

I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the     woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the  woodstock loose."...DPD detective JC Day

Lets try to parse Detective Day's statement......

"I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock."

In this statement Day says he' has spotted the "unclear" palm print on the SIDE of the barrel.....

"I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint "    

In this statement he indicates that when he started to take the woodstock off the rifle he " noted traces of a palmprint "
This sounds like two different prints.....He said that he had already seen  "a trace of a print"...and that what had prompted him to "take the woodstock off"....Then he noted traces of a palm print. that was near the firing end of the barrel ( normally called the muzzle) 

"about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the  woodstock loose."...DPD detective JC Day

The front of the woodstock is 5 1/4" back from the "firing end" ( muzzle)......and the side of the barrel above the wooden foregrip is 9 inches to the rear of the muzzle.

Day also testified that he removed the stock and dusted the area with black finger print powder......then he claimed that he used cellophane tape to lift the print.    And he said that the print was still visible on the barrel and the FBI should have been able to see that print......However The FBI man was far better qualified in examining finger prints than detective Day  and he testified that he saw not a trace of a print nor did he see any finger print powder on the barrel.... 

[Jon Banks]

Even if it were a confirmed fact that "LHO did not hate JFK" that means absolutely nothing in terms of his guilt.  The evidence is used to prove guilt.  There is an abundance that links Oswald to this crime.  But again, JFK was also the President of the United States.  Not just a person.  Someone with a axe to grind with the US might take that out on its most prominent representative.  So even if LHO did not "hate" JFK he still had an obvious motive for targeting him because Oswald was a political nut job.   And you cannot discount the fact that the opportunity fell into Oswald's lap.  JFK's motorcade literally drove by his place of work affording him the chance.  Oswald did not "target" JFK in the sense that he had to seek him out as most assassins have to do.  JFK came to Dallas and drove right into Oswald's line of sight.

I agree that the lack of a clearly defined motive doesn't exonerate Oswald. It's just one of many weird things about the JFK assassination case. Taken collectively with other problems with the case, I continue to believe the case is unsolved and might've been a conspiracy.


I disagree that he was likely a Nut-job. Calling both Oswald and Ruby "Nut-jobs" is the defense of last resort when people can't explain their motives for doing certain things that they did.

Oswald was diagnosed with Personality Disorder issues, he wasn't diagnosed with any known mental illness. Personality Disorders and Mental Illness aren't the same. Some speculate that he had Aspergers or was Autistic. Aspergers wasn't widely recognized in the 1950s-1960s. 

[Richard Smith]

I agree that the lack of a clearly defined motive doesn't exonerate Oswald. It's just one of many weird things about the JFK assassination case. Taken collectively with other problems with the case, I continue to believe the case is unsolved and might've been a conspiracy.


I disagree that he was likely a Nut-job. Calling both Oswald and Ruby "Nut-jobs" is the defense of last resort when people can't explain their motives for doing certain things that they did.

Oswald was diagnosed with Personality Disorder issues, he wasn't diagnosed with any known mental illness. Personality Disorders and Mental Illness aren't the same. Some speculate that he had Aspergers or was Autistic. Aspergers wasn't widely recognized in the 1950s-1960s.

The act of shooting the President is not a rational one.  There can't be a rational motive for doing so.  There was something wrong with Oswald as demonstrated in many ways.  His defection to the USSR.  Not normal.  His attempt to kill Walker.  Not normal.  His desire to defect to Cuba and trips to the Cuban Embassy.  Not normal.  Whether he had some type of clinical mental illness can be debated but there is no doubt that he was a very strange guy.  Of course there are lots of odd people (some of whom frequent this forum) who never commit any violent act.  But Oswald certainly falls within the category of suspect individuals.  The FBI was keeping tabs on him.  His own wife went to check on whether his rifle was still in the garage when she heard of JFK's assassination.  That speaks volumes that his wife was suspicious that he might commit the crime even before the police arrived.  He was the type.  That doesn't make him guilty.  That is what the evidence proves, but Oswald's personality is entirely consistent with being the assassin and nothing about his alleged lack of "motive" casts any doubt on his guilt as was suggested.  That is not a defense of last resort but reality.  Only Oswald can ever explain why he did it but it was no real surprise to anyone who knew him.  He was a lifelong malcontent with a screw loose. 

[Walt Cakebread]

The act of shooting the President is not a rational one.  There can't be a rational motive for doing so.  There was something wrong with Oswald as demonstrated in many ways.  His defection to the USSR.  Not normal.  His attempt to kill Walker.  Not normal.  His desire to defect to Cuba and trips to the Cuban Embassy.  Not normal.  Whether he had some type of clinical mental illness can be debated but there is no doubt that he was a very strange guy.  Of course there are lots of odd people (some of whom frequent this forum) who never commit any violent act.  But Oswald certainly falls within the category of suspect individuals.  The FBI was keeping tabs on him.  His own wife went to check on whether his rifle was still in the garage when she heard of JFK's assassination.  That speaks volumes that his wife was suspicious that he might commit the crime even before the police arrived.  He was the type.  That doesn't make him guilty.  That is what the evidence proves, but Oswald's personality is entirely consistent with being the assassin and nothing about his alleged lack of "motive" casts any doubt on his guilt as was suggested.  That is not a defense of last resort but reality.  Only Oswald can ever explain why he did it but it was no real surprise to anyone who knew him.  He was a lifelong malcontent with a screw loose.

 His attempt to kill Walker.  Not normal.

How do you know that Walker's assailant intended to kill him ??

Were you involved in the shooting?

[Jon Banks]

The act of shooting the President is not a rational one.  There can't be a rational motive for doing so.

So the CIA's attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro were irrational?

I don't condone politically motivated violence or terrorism but political assassinations and terrorism CAN be rationalized if the killer intends to achieve some sort of political End.

I'm not convinced that Oswald had a political motive (assuming for the sake of argument that he acted alone).

If he was motivated by politics, it would still be wrong but not necessarily irrational.

There was something wrong with Oswald as demonstrated in many ways.  His defection to the USSR.  Not normal.  His attempt to kill Walker.  Not normal.  His desire to defect to Cuba and trips to the Cuban Embassy.  Not normal.  Whether he had some type of clinical mental illness can be debated but there is no doubt that he was a very strange guy.

We agree that he was "Odd" and not normal for the times in which he lived.

But political idealism and strange behavior doesn't equate to mental illness.

If he had lived a few years longer, he arguably would've fit in with the New Left movements of the late-1960s/early-1970s.

Of course there are lots of odd people (some of whom frequent this forum) who never commit any violent act.  But Oswald certainly falls within the category of suspect individuals.  The FBI was keeping tabs on him.  His own wife went to check on whether his rifle was still in the garage when she heard of JFK's assassination.  That speaks volumes that his wife was suspicious that he might commit the crime even before the police arrived.  He was the type.  That doesn't make him guilty.  That is what the evidence proves, but Oswald's personality is entirely consistent with being the assassin and nothing about his alleged lack of "motive" casts any doubt on his guilt as was suggested.  That is not a defense of last resort but reality.  Only Oswald can ever explain why he did it but it was no real surprise to anyone who knew him.  He was a lifelong malcontent with a screw loose.

The FBI and CIA kept tabs on him prior to the assassination but there's no evidence that they viewed Oswald as a violent extremist.

J Edgar Hoover and the FBI spied on thousands of Americans from Far-Left activists to members of the KKK. Most of the people the FBI spied on weren't violent extremists.

The reasons for the CIA's interest in Oswald prior to the assassination are less clear and should be investigated further...

[Walt Cakebread]

So the CIA's attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro were irrational?

I don't condone politically motivated violence or terrorism but political assassinations and terrorism CAN be rationalized if the killer intends to achieve some sort of political End.

I'm not convinced that Oswald had a political motive (assuming for the sake of argument that he acted alone).

If he was motivated by politics, it would still be wrong but not necessarily irrational.



We agree that he was "Odd" and not normal for the times in which he lived.

But political idealism and strange behavior doesn't equate to mental illness.

If he had lived a few years longer, he arguably would've fit in with the New Left movements of the late-1960s/early-1970s.


The FBI and CIA kept tabs on him prior to the assassination but there's no evidence that they viewed Oswald as a violent extremist.

J Edgar Hoover and the FBI spied on thousands of Americans from Far-Left activists to members of the KKK. Most of the people the FBI spied on weren't violent extremists.

The reasons for the CIA's interest in Oswald prior to the assassination are less clear and should be investigated further...

The FBI and CIA kept tabs on him prior to the assassination but there's no evidence that they viewed Oswald as a violent extremist.

Less than 2 1/2 hours after JFK was murdered in Dealey Plaza , FBI agent James Hosty told DPD detective, Jack Revlll ..that  A communist named Lee Oswald had killed President Kennedy FBI agent Hosty also told Revill that the FBI was aware of the subject ( LHO) and the FBI had information that the subject was capable of committing the assassination of President Kennedy...

Many LNer's will see no problem with Hosty's statement.....But the most glaring lie is Hosty's statement that Lee Oswald had killed JFK.     At 2:50 pm there had been NO investigation what-so- ever on which Hosty could have based his statement....

There's no doubt that this is true.....  Except

[Jerry Organ]

Day said the print was three inches from the forward end of the wooden fore-stock, not three inches from the muzzle. Above that area of the fore-stock, half of the metal barrel remains exposed. That's where the hardworking and sharp-eyed Day saw part of the palm print exposed. ("I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock.")


OK, Mr O..... Please show me where the three inches back is related to?      3 inches from WHERE??  And if the print was on the SIDE of the barrel then why did Day write on the index card,  that it was "Off UNDERSIDE" of gun barrel "

Day first saw a part of it peeking up on the barrel as the barrel sat in the wooden stock. When Day removed the barrel from the stock, he saw that much more of that same print was underneath the barrel ("Off Underside"). Pretty straight forward, if you ask me.

[Jerry Freeman]

'JFK came to Dallas and drove right into Oswald's line of sight'
And Oswald ran right into an abundance of witnesses along his line of flight.

      So that we may see the super duper flash precision timing of "Oswald's Escape" once again--- 12:30...shots fired. 10 minutes and 6 blocks later...He is boarding a bus [snicker]-- 4 minutes and 3 blocks after that, he has entered a taxi and is instantly on his way to Oak Cliff [giggle]-- 6 minutes after that, the cabbie drops him off sundry blocks south of his room [cough] --That gave the murderous assassin 6 minutes to get to his room and grab his pistol [just in case he had to shoot some random cop]   The suspect is then given 15 minutes and the shortest distance possible [maybe] to arrive at the rendezvous point of the Tippit encounter.....Defies logic!  How long was that encounter? Didn't matter. The Report apologists ignore the likelihood of all these events and just merely agree with the original Dallas Police narrative....Oswald is your guy= case closed. Do we see where that theory went?
Ridiculous as it is...that is the theory that went into the history books.
 http://www.mapmanusa.com/cci-killing-kennedy-6.html