When the SN was built

[John Iacoletti]

The “Rolling Readers” boxes contained, instead of books, light blocks used as reading aids.

Was it not within the responsibility of the depository workers to fill orders for these as well as books?

[Charles Collins]

Only because that fits with what you already believe.

 


Now you think that you have become a mind reader?   

[Richard Smith]

It is simply a fact that Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes.  Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave his prints on the long bag found next to the SN.  Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave a print on the rifle.  Imagine the terrible luck that would be involved if Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to touch these objects and leave identifiable prints because he "worked there."  No person - even a contrarian - can believe that is what happened.  They are like defense attorneys who don't have to believe their own nonsense.  They are just trying to create doubt by any means.   Providing bizarre explanation after explanation for the mountain of evidence against Oswald in a desperate attempt to suggest any doubt.  Why they feel compelled to do this over and over if something that a psychiatrist would need to sort out. 

[Martin Weidmann]

It is simply a fact that Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes.  Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave his prints on the long bag found next to the SN.  Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave a print on the rifle.  Imagine the terrible luck that would be involved if Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to touch these objects and leave identifiable prints because he "worked there."  No person - even a contrarian - can believe that is what happened.  They are like defense attorneys who don't have to believe their own nonsense.  They are just trying to create doubt by any means.   Providing bizarre explanation after explanation for the mountain of evidence against Oswald in a desperate attempt to suggest any doubt.  Why they feel compelled to do this over and over if something that a psychiatrist would need to sort out.

It is simply a fact that Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes.

Which doesn't negate the possibility that there were prints of other TSBD employees on those boxes which they simply (or perhaps conveniently) could/did not identify.

Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave his prints on the long bag found next to the SN.

You mean the bag that wasn't seen by the first six officers in or near the S/N and that was never photographed in situ?
The bag that Frazier and Randle said wasn't the bag they had seen Oswald carry that morning?

There are more questions than answers for that bag.

Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave a print on the rifle.

It is in no way certain that Oswald left any print on the rifle. Just because Day said so, doesn't make it true. FBI SA Vincent Drain certainly didn't believe Day, so why should we?

No person - even a contrarian - can believe that is what happened.

And once again you are wrong. There are plenty of people who do not believe that is what happened.

the mountain of evidence against Oswald

This BS never gets old. LOL

[Richard Smith]

It is simply a fact that Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes.

Which doesn't negate the possibility that there were prints of other TSBD employees on those boxes which they simply (or perhaps conveniently) could/did not identify.

Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave his prints on the long bag found next to the SN.

You mean the bag that wasn't seen by the first six officers in or near the S/N and that was never photographed in situ?
The bag that Frazier and Randle said wasn't the bag they had seen Oswald carry that morning?

There are more questions than answers for that bag.

Oswald was the ONLY TSBD employee to leave a print on the rifle.

It is in no way certain that Oswald left any print on the rifle. Just because Day said so, doesn't make it true. FBI SA Vincent Drain certainly didn't believe Day, so why should we?

No person - even a contrarian - can believe that is what happened.

And once again you are wrong. There are plenty of people who do not believe that is what happened.

the mountain of evidence against Oswald

This BS never gets old. LOL

This is just the old impossible standard of proof argument.  Day confirms that he found Oswald's print on the rifle.   You just dismiss this by suggesting that it is possible that he lied.  You make no effort whatsoever to support this claim.  It would be impossible to convict anyone of a crime if a defense could be raised that there is doubt because it is merely possible that the police are lying about the evidence.  Which is why even in a criminal trial in which there is a presumption of innocence, that the defense can't introduce such a claim without some evidence to support it.

And you really want to suggest it was just bad luck that Oswald happened to be the ONLY TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes?  Wow. 

[Alan Ford]

Here are a few more. As you can see, we humans do not have instant replay memories that get all the details accurately every time. If Arnold Rowland really thought he saw a black man in the southeast corner window, I believe that he could have seen one of the ones on the fifth floor and misremembered it as being the sixth floor.

Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything about any other people in any other windows?
Mrs. ROWLAND. No; I don't think so.
Mr. BELIN. Now, did you notice any other people standing in any other windows or leaning out?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I am not sure if I did at that moment.
Mr. BELIN. Later on?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I saw some people either earlier or later looking out the windows.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember anything about any of the people you saw?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Some of them were colored men. I don't think I saw any women.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any white men?
Mrs. ROWLAND. I am not positive.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember where you saw any of these Negro men?
Mrs. ROWLAND. On a lower floor, about the fourth floor, I think, and nearer the center window. The windows nearer the center.



Mr. BELIN - Did you see any other people on the sixth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Did you notice whether or not there were any, or just did you look and see any?
Mr. EDWARDS - I notice that there---I just didn't see any.
Mr. BELIN - What about the next floor above? Did you see any people on the floor above?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - What about on any floors below? See any people on the fifth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Fourth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Third floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - Possibly.
Mr. BELIN - Second floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I believe so.
Mr. BELIN - First floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I don't know.



Mr. BELIN. Did you see any other people in any other windows that you can recollect?
Mr. BRENNAN. Not on that floor.
There was no other person on that floor that ever came to the window that I noticed.
There were people on the next floor down, which is the fifth floor, colored guys. In particular, I only remember two that I identified.

V. weak sauce, Mr. Collins.........

Mrs. Rowland is not Mr. Rowland

Mr. Edwards is referring to a later point in time

Mr. Brennan is referring to a later point in time

 

[Charles Collins]

Here's an image of CE 880 which is a photo of a scale model of Dealey Plaza. It shows part of the sixth floor with the sniper's nest boxes (including the boxes that extend to the third set of windows). The reason I think this is significant is that it shows the relationship of the size of the sixth floor to the boxes specified above. The typical photos that we see of the sixth floor do not depict this size relationship very well. Granted, it doesn't show the other stacks of boxes on the floor that form the various aisles. But to me it shows why some of the officers indicated the remains of BRW's lunch were near those boxes. They are photographed under the cart in front of the third set of windows which was adjacent to those boxes.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is just the old impossible standard of proof argument.  Day confirms that he found Oswald's print on the rifle.   You just dismiss this by suggesting that it is possible that he lied.  You make no effort whatsoever to support this claim.  It would be impossible to convict anyone of a crime if a defense could be raised that there is doubt because it is merely possible that the police are lying about the evidence.  Which is why even in a criminal trial in which there is a presumption of innocence, that the defense can't introduce such a claim without some evidence to support it.

And you really want to suggest it was just bad luck that Oswald happened to be the ONLY TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes?  Wow.

This is just the old impossible standard of proof argument.

Not really. It's more the superficiality of your arguments that fail to convince.

Day confirms that he found Oswald's print on the rifle.

"Day said so" isn't compelling evidence, when his actions are suspect (to say the least) and there is no credible record or chain of custody for a print taped on a piece of paper.
FBI SA Vincent Drain didn't believe him, so why should we?

You just dismiss this by suggesting that it is possible that he lied.

No, it's the circumstances as a whole, the FBI not finding any prints or residue of a lifted print on the rifle, the complete failure of following procedure by Day, the total lack of a credible chain of custody and the fact that Day allegedly kept the print in his desk for a week without telling anybody. The record shows that everybody was completely surprised when Day suddenly produced the card with the print on it, just before all the evidence was shipped to Washington for the second time.

You make no effort whatsoever to support this claim.

Already done. You just don't like it. Explain to me why Day did not produce the print, when Oswald was still alive and the FBI said they could not find even a trace of a print on the rifle?

It would be impossible to convict anyone of a crime if a defense could be raised that there is doubt because it is merely possible that the police are lying about the evidence.

To eliminate the possibility of police misconduct there are procedures in place and a credible chain of custody needs to be provided. When this is not done, it can not be ruled out that the evidence is tainted.

Which is why even in a criminal trial in which there is a presumption of innocence, that the defense can't introduce such a claim without some evidence to support it.

No defense lawyer will argue that "it is merely possible that the police are lying". The argument doesn't have to be made when evidence can not be authenticated.

And you really want to suggest it was just bad luck that Oswald happened to be the ONLY TSBD employee to leave identifiable prints on the SN boxes?

Did he?