When the SN was built

[Martin Weidmann]

So many false premises, contradictions, and absence of common sense and logic.  Here you are alleging that the fact that Day did not mention the print to anyone means that he fabricated that evidence.  You can't even prove that he didn't mention it to anyone.  But even if he didn't, why would he lie to fabricate evidence after Oswald was dead?  There would be no prosecution of Oswald by the DPD.  If the DPD was satisfied by the evidence without this print - and they were, and there would never be any trial why in the world would someone risk their reputation and career lying about the evidence in the most important case in his career?  It makes absolutely no sense.  In fact, it is baseless and idiotic.

Did you take classes to become so patheticly ignorant?

You can't even prove that he didn't mention it to anyone

A negative can't be proven. Instead prove that Day did mention it to somebody. You can't!

But even if he didn't, why would he lie to fabricate evidence after Oswald was dead?  There would be no prosecution of Oswald by the DPD.

If you had read my previous post you would have your answer.

If the DPD was satisfied by the evidence without this print - and they were,

Really? And you know this, how?

The reality is of course that we know now they had no case of any significance against Oswald for the Kennedy murder, despite the bogus claims made by Henry Wade.

why in the world would someone risk their reputation and career lying about the evidence in the most important case in his career?

What risk? Day would tell the WC, behind closed doors, and the evidence (including his testimony) would be locked away as top secret for decades. Who was going to call out Day for lying?

Btw, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question;

When the FBI examined the rifle on Friday evening or early Saturday morning and found no trace of a print or residue of a print that was lifted, why did Day keep his mouth shut?  Oswald was still alive at that point and his print found on the rifle would be crucial evidence, yet Day said nothing and by doing so discredited the evidence and the chain of custody. Does that make sense to you?

[Richard Smith]

Did you take classes to become so patheticly ignorant?

You can't even prove that he didn't mention it to anyone

A negative can't be proven. Instead prove that Day did mention it to somebody. You can't!

But even if he didn't, why would he lie to fabricate evidence after Oswald was dead?  There would be no prosecution of Oswald by the DPD.

If you had read my previous post you would have your answer.

If the DPD was satisfied by the evidence without this print - and they were,

Really? And you know this, how?

The reality is of course that we know now they had no case of any significance against Oswald for the Kennedy murder, despite the bogus claims made by Henry Wade.

why in the world would someone risk their reputation and career lying about the evidence in the most important case in his career?

What risk? Day would tell the WC, behind closed doors, and the evidence (including his testimony) would be locked away as top secret for decades. Who was going to call out Day for lying?

Btw, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question;

When the FBI examined the rifle on Friday evening or early Saturday morning and found no trace of a print or residue of a print that was lifted, why did Day keep his mouth shut?  Oswald was still alive at that point and his print found on the rifle would be crucial evidence, yet Day said nothing and by doing so discredited the evidence and the chain of custody. Does that make sense to you?

The DPD arrested and charged LHO for the murder of JFK based upon the evidence that they had available on Nov. 22.  This act confirms that they believed they had sufficient evidence to do so as of that time.  Oswald is then murdered two days later meaning there would never be a criminal prosecution.  Thus, the DPD would have no incentive to then fabricate any additional evidence to bolster the prosecution of Oswald for that crime.  They had the sole legal responsibility for investigating the case.  They were satisfied Oswald was responsible for the crime based upon the evidence that they had as demonstrated by charging him with that crime.  Oswald's death closed the case from their perspective.  The guilty person was dead.

Day would have no apparent incentive to fabricate any additional evidence after this point.  There is no evidence to suggest that he did so.  Your baseless allegation (unproven) that he told no one about the fingerprints for a week is not evidence of any fabrication.  That is idiot logic.  The fact that you would question why it is risky to fabricate evidence in the murder of the president is unreal.   It is incredibly risky to fabricate evidence in any murder case and a crime much less the crime of the century.  Why would any law enforcement person do so when they knew that the DPD was satisfied of Oswald's guilt and there would be no trial?  What incentive would Day even have to frame Oswald for this crime?  Particularly in the complete absence of a trial. 
Why would he risk his career and potential jail for fabricating evidence against a dead man?   This is not an OJ-type situation where it can be argued that the police were framing a guilty person by planting evidence.  Oswald was dead.  There would be no incentive to fabricate additional evidence.  To suggest that is what happened is sheer contrarian, defense attorney stupidity. 

[Martin Weidmann]

The DPD arrested and charged LHO for the murder of JFK based upon the evidence that they had available on Nov. 22.  This act confirms that they believed they had sufficient evidence to do so as of that time.  Oswald is then murdered two days later meaning there would never be a criminal prosecution.  Thus, the DPD would have no incentive to then fabricate any additional evidence to bolster the prosecution of Oswald for that crime.  They had the sole legal responsibility for investigating the case.  They were satisfied Oswald was responsible for the crime based upon the evidence that they had as demonstrated by charging him with that crime.  Oswald's death closed the case from their perspective.  The guilty person was dead.

Day would have no apparent incentive to fabricate any additional evidence after this point.  There is no evidence to suggest that he did so.  Your baseless allegation (unproven) that he told no one about the fingerprints for a week is not evidence of any fabrication.  That is idiot logic.  The fact that you would question why it is risky to fabricate evidence in the murder of the president is unreal.   It is incredibly risky to fabricate evidence in any murder case and a crime much less the crime of the century.  Why would any law enforcement person do so when they knew that the DPD was satisfied of Oswald's guilt and there would be no trial?  What incentive would Day even have to frame Oswald for this crime?  Particularly in the complete absence of a trial. 
Why would he risk his career and potential jail for fabricating evidence against a dead man?   This is not an OJ-type situation where it can be argued that the police were framing a guilty person by planting evidence.  Oswald was dead.  There would be no incentive to fabricate additional evidence.  To suggest that is what happened is sheer contrarian, defense attorney stupidity.

Repeating the same BS over and over again doesn't make it any more significant.

The DPD arrested and charged LHO for the murder of JFK based upon the evidence that they had available on Nov. 22.

Which was absolutely nothing. They had a rifle and a bag which at the time of charging Oswald neither could be linked to him.

Why do you keep avoiding the main question? When the FBI said, on Saturday morning, when Oswald was still alive, that they had found no print or residue of a lifted print on the rifle, why did Day keep his mouth shut? On Saturday, the expectation was still that Oswald would be going to trial, so why would Day compromise crucial evidence by not reporting he had lifted a print of the rifle? Don't you think that Fritz could have used a matching print in his interrogation of Oswald?

What incentive would Day even have to frame Oswald for this crime?

Who knows why Day did what he did? You would have to ask him. And then also ask him why he was so desperate to fabricate a bogus yjeory to explain why Frazier did not identify the bag found at the TSBD as the one Oswald had carried that morning?

[Michael Walton]

OK I'm confused about this thread. First, and elsewhere, there are folks here who said there really wasn't much to construct for the sniper's nest. Now, with this thread and the usual cast of characters here, an elaborate sniper's nest was constructed and it was constructed before 12:15. And oh by the way, one of the boxes had LHO's prints.

So which is it? And yes, if you really went into it, I'm sure LHO's prints were all over the place in that building. He did work there after all for a month or so.

[Charles Collins]

Sixth Floor Museum, Oral History Collection, J.C. Day, 8/15/96, pages 18-19, interviewer - Bob Porter:

Carl:  Anyway, I found traces of a print that extended out on the barrel, part of them apparently went up under the barrel between the barrel and the stock. So then I took the gun off and finished dusting the area, and then I found a piece of a palm print there. It looked reasonably good for comparison purposes. The usual method of collecting those prints after you develop them and can see them, is take a piece of Scotch tape and mash down over it good. And the powder will cling to the tape when you pull it off, and you can put the powder on a 3 by 5 card like this, (holding up a small card) put it on the back. And then you‟ve got the print under that tape, and you can take it and compare it. But this was very dim, which indicated that was not a new print. It didn‟t take much powder. But reflection of the light showed the dried print on the barrel. I looked at the print and it looked like this part of his palm where the gun had been laying across his hand. I‟ve forgotten now which hand it was, but I was pretty sure that this part of the palm was what I‟d collected. But it was a very dim print, and for presentation to a jury, you like the best print you could show. I could see it, but I don‟t think a jury could. But the reflection of the light when I shined it on there, I could still see pretty good impressions of that print on that barrel. So I was fixing to set up my cameras to try to take a photograph of that print, and of course on something round the light makes a streak right down one part. If you‟ve got a light here, it won‟t light up the whole thing. You‟ll see a streak of light and if you move that light a little, the light on the barrel will move around. I was going to set up a time exposure, and get it set, and then take that light and move it around the barrel to get all of the print, what I was fixing to do. About that time, I got orders from my captain, Captain Dowdy…don‟t do anything else to the gun. Stop what you‟re doing, [unclear Drain], the FBI will be in at 11:30 to pick it up. Well it, of course it caught me right in the middle of the stream. I didn‟t know just exactly what to do. I had powder all over it. They say, “Don‟t do anything else to it,” and that‟s what I do. I followed orders (chuckling). But it was kind of a frustrating thing when you‟re working with it and be interrupted in mid stream that way. I don‟t think the chief‟s office at that time knew just exactly where I stood on checking that. But anyway, I stopped and stripped it back in the stock and put it aside. I didn‟t try to wrap it up or anything because you could mess those prints up wrapping them up and handling them. I didn‟t have time to write reports or anything like that, it must have been after ten o‟clock then, so I just put the gun back in the evidence room and left it alone until Drain came in at 11:30. He had two or three people with him.
Bob: Did you know him, or was this just a…
Carl: Yes, I‟d known Drain a long time. And I told him at the time, there‟s a print here. I showed him where it is, where it was. But I don‟t know whether it registered with him or not. Anyway, he took the gun. But that‟s all that I turned over. I didn‟t turn over the lift that I‟d previously made of that dim print, because I thought that they would find that under there and come up with their own print. My orders were turn over the gun, and so I don‟t remember if I gave them anything else or not - there may have been one or two other things. But I didn‟t even thing of giving them this print that I had lifted off of there. Well, the gun was taking about 11:30 that night. I worked all night - I didn‟t come in the next day. Sunday the gun was returned, but I wasn‟t there when it was returned, and it was in a box, a big box. But again, I was directed not to do anything else with it, just leave it alone. And I didn‟t open the box. And I never did get back to checking the print, they told me not to do anything else with it, and I didn‟t. I felt sure it was his print when I briefly examined it…that palm print that I got off the barrel.
Bob: Yes.
Carl: And when I went to, no I‟m getting ahead of myself. I didn‟t hear anymore of the gun after I gave it to Drain. I knew it came back and was in our evidence room. But I didn‟t examine it or do anything else with the evidence at all.

[Charles Collins]

OK I'm confused about this thread. First, and elsewhere, there are folks here who said there really wasn't much to construct for the sniper's nest. Now, with this thread and the usual cast of characters here, an elaborate sniper's nest was constructed and it was constructed before 12:15. And oh by the way, one of the boxes had LHO's prints.

So which is it? And yes, if you really went into it, I'm sure LHO's prints were all over the place in that building. He did work there after all for a month or so.

Most of the boxes surrounding the sniper's nest (and obscuring it from view) were already moved there due to the flooring work. Arranging a few boxes at the window is what we are discussing. Functional, but not "elaborate."

[Richard Smith]

Repeating the same BS over and over again doesn't make it any more significant.

The DPD arrested and charged LHO for the murder of JFK based upon the evidence that they had available on Nov. 22.

Which was absolutely nothing. They had a rifle and a bag which at the time of charging Oswald neither could be linked to him.

Why do you keep avoiding the main question? When the FBI said, on Saturday morning, when Oswald was still alive, that they had found no print or residue of a lifted print on the rifle, why did Day keep his mouth shut? On Saturday, the expectation was still that Oswald would be going to trial, so why would Day compromise crucial evidence by not reporting he had lifted a print of the rifle? Don't you think that Fritz could have used a matching print in his interrogation of Oswald?

What incentive would Day even have to frame Oswald for this crime?

Who knows why Day did what he did? You would have to ask him. And then also ask him why he was so desperate to fabricate a bogus yjeory to explain why Frazier did not identify the bag found at the TSBD as the one Oswald had carried that morning?

False premise.  There is no proof that Day "kept his mouth shut."  In fact, others have already noted evidence to the contrary.  And after using your Ouija board/time machine to reach this conclusion (which, even if it were true, doesn't validate your idiotic suggestion that Day fabricated the prints) you follow this by asking "Who knows why Day did what he did"?  LOL.  I almost feel bad for you.  There is no evidence whatsoever - as in absolutely none - that Day fabricated this or any evidence.  In fact, for the reasons noted, there was absolutely no reason to do so and plenty of reasons not to.  You certainly have suggested none nor even spun us a fantasy fable to explain why Day would risk his career and jail to frame a dead guy.

[Richard Smith]

OK I'm confused about this thread. First, and elsewhere, there are folks here who said there really wasn't much to construct for the sniper's nest. Now, with this thread and the usual cast of characters here, an elaborate sniper's nest was constructed and it was constructed before 12:15. And oh by the way, one of the boxes had LHO's prints.

So which is it? And yes, if you really went into it, I'm sure LHO's prints were all over the place in that building. He did work there after all for a month or so.

The majority of SN boxes were already in place due to the floor project.  Oswald likely took that into consideration in selecting his shooting location.  It was perfect for his needs offering a good combination of seclusion and shooting angle.  He only moved a few small boxes for his purposes and the prints on those boxes confirm that is what he did.  The long bag with his prints being left next to the SN and his rifle on the same floor make it a rock-solid case.  It is difficult to conceive how there could even be much more evidence than was found to link Oswald to this crime.  And, of course. the great logical inconsistency of CTers is that they argue that this evidence was planted to frame Oswald but then claim this same evidence doesn't link Oswald to the crime.  Logic not being a trait much utilized by CTers when it interferes with a desired narrative, but still entertaining.