When the SN was built

[John Iacoletti]

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.

The infamous "why would X do Y?" argument.  Two can play that game.  Why would Day refuse to make a sworn statement regarding his handling of the print?

[John Iacoletti]

Might be right, if nothing else, using the prevailing Conspiracy Land Logic, LHO took all the books out and then retaped the empty box during the actual shooting and then ran to the lunchroom where he encountered Officer Baker. Totally innocent. Really, it could have happened that way you know.

Literally nobody has ever made such an argument.

[John Iacoletti]

According to the claim you made of LHO’s innocence that is exactly right.

I didn't make a claim of LHO's innocence.  Are you trying to wrest the title away from Strawman "Smith"?

His fingerprints place him building the SN and not the result if him retrieving books from the box.

And you determined these were left as a result of "building the SN", how, exactly?

If there is a better candidate for the assassin, other than the individual who built the SN and brought his rifle to the TSBD where it was found on the 6th floor and matched to the shells, bullet and fragments, now would be a good time to reveal who it is.

If you can actually prove that he "built the SN" and "brought his rifle to the TSBD", now would be a good time to demonstrate it.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

And we should care what the DPD "believed", why, exactly?  They apparently "believed" that they even had probable cause to arrest him for murder in the theater with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

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.

'I just don't believe there was ever a print,' said Drain, He noted that there was increasing pressure on the Dallas police to build evidence in the case. Asked to explain what might have happened, Agent Drain stated, “All I can figure is that it (Oswald's print) was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off Oswald’s card and put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.” -- Henry Hurt , "Reasonable Doubt", p. 109

It is incredibly risky to fabricate evidence in any murder case and a crime much less the crime of the century.

And yet that is exactly what the Dallas PD did in the case of Randall Dale Adams.

[Alan Ford]

From FBI report of interview of Mr. Charles Givens (11/22/63):



Extraordinary, simply extraordinary, that Mr. Givens has clear memory on 11/22 of plenty of things (incl. LHO-related things), but NOT of his trip back up to six for cigarettes, NOR of his sighting up there of Mr. Oswald! No, his most significant----------------and last---------------LHO-memory is of Mr. Oswald on five, wanting the elevator gates closed..........

[Richard Smith]

The kooks are really getting stirred up by this spanking. Where is Otto to chime in?  Does he live in "Europe" too?  I do wonder if they believe any of their own nonsense or whether this is just a hobby to extend the discussion.  Like arguing with someone who says the sky is blue to get a rise out them or seek attention.   Do they really believe there is any real possibility that Day fabricated the print evidence or is this defense attorney nonsense in which they don't believe their opinion matters.  All that matters is suggesting false doubt in the mind of others even if they themselves know it is bull.  What is more frightening?  That they don't believe their own arguments or that they do? 

[Martin Weidmann]

""You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic."

"You Can Prove a Negative"
     -- Stephen Law, Psychology Today ( Link )

Enlighten me. How do you prove that something didn't happen?

[Richard Smith]

Enlighten me. How do you prove that something didn't happen?

Asks the same guy who claims to have proven that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and that Day didn't mention the prints to anyone.  LOL.  Granted you haven't actually proven those things but apparently believe the concept is possible.