RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Martin Weidmann]

The official evidentiary record rested with the DPD on 11/22/63. The other personnel that Gary Savage wrote about and worked in the DPD crime lab were listed in the WC records. Yet Gary was apparently the first author to write about them. Why were none of the CT authors interested in them for the thirty years prior to Gary’s book?

The official evidentiary record rested with the DPD on 11/22/63.

True and they made a complete mess of it. But if you want to go that way; was the evidence card with the palmprint ever presented to the DPD evidence room and if so, where is the corresponding paperwork?

Why were none of the CT authors interested in them for the thirty years prior to Gary’s book?

Why ask me? Ask them....

[Martin Weidmann]

   "Revision of History"? People are dog piling SA Landis in the face of the current POTUS who Mon-Fri consistently does exactly this. Claims to have locked elbows with MLK and was jailed alongside Mandela, etc. Landis is small potatoes compared to the revision of history that is ongoing daily by people in positions of power.

Landis is small potatoes compared to the revision of history that is ongoing daily by people in positions of power.

That may be true, but he still has the entire LN clan throwing a hissy fit

[Royell Storing]

Landis is small potatoes compared to the revision of history that is ongoing daily by people in positions of power.

That may be true, but he still has the entire LN clan throwing a hissy fit

   Not sure why the LN's are in such an uproar over Landis.  His memory is fair game. What should scare the LN's is the memory of Bobby Kennedy Jr. That guy has the bona fides to bring the JFK Assassination back onto the front burner as Nov 22 looms.

[Richard Smith]

But that's not what I am arguing, fool. My point has been and will always be that evidence can not be credible and needs to be called into question when it can not be authenticated. I know, that's a concept that goes way over your head, but then, you're not an LN for nothing.

Btw, tell me what is this "abundant evidence" you are rambling on about? All you've got is "cop said so", isn't it?

That is exactly what you are arguing.  Your ONLY basis to cast doubt on finding Oswald's print on the rifle is that it allegedly took Day a few days to report it.  Again, how does not mentioning it to anyone for a few days (even if that were true) call into question its authenticity?  Failure to report finding the evidence doesn't equate to fabricating or lying about the evidence.   If he had said on the first day that he found the print, would you then accept that it was Oswald's?  Of course not.  You would go down some other rabbit hole.  It was Day's job to look for prints on the rifle.  That's what he did.  He reported the results.  You don't like them so they must be fake. 

[Richard Smith]

   Not sure why the LN's are in such an uproar over Landis.  His memory is fair game. What should scare the LN's is the memory of Bobby Kennedy Jr. That guy has the bona fides to bring the JFK Assassination back onto the front burner as Nov 22 looms.

Who is in an uproar.?  I think the matter has been discussed rationally.  Everyone has listened to what he has to say.   Landis is older than even Joe Biden, though.  He never reported finding a bullet until six decades later.  I'm sure he has been influenced by CTers.  Many elderly people are subject to manipulation.  That is why scam artists and telemarketers target the elderly.  I don't think he is a bad guy or intentionally lying.  He is just a "patsy."

[Dan O'meara]

Ask an LN and they will tell you there was nothing wrong with Day lifting a print and not telling anybody about it for several days.

This is one of these things (on a very long list) that, when looked at it with an open mind, raises massive questions about the entire LN narrative.

It's not just Day lifting a print, it's the importance of the print.
By the evening of the assassination Day had evidence that Oswald had handled the murder weapon!
By the time Day lifted the print he already had Oswald's palm print to for comparison. What priority could there be above this evidence?
What greater piece of evidence exists that ties Oswald to the murder weapon? That directly implicates him in the assassination of JFK?
There is none.

Mr. Belin: At the time you had this did you have any comparison fingerprints to make with the actual prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. Day: Yes, sir; we had sets in Captain Fritz' office. Oswald was in his custody, we had made palmprints and fingerprints of him.

So, why didn't Day release this fundamentally important piece of evidence to the FBI?

Mr. Belin: Is there any particular reason why this was not released on the 22d?

Mr. Day: The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints. Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing.

Mr. Belin: You mean the remaining traces of the powder you had when you got the lift, Exhibit 637 [palm print], is that what you mean by the lift of the remaining print on the gun?

Mr. Day: Yes, sir. Actually it was dried ridges on there. There were traces of ridges still on the gun barrel.


He is saying he didn't send his lift because he felt confident there was enough of a print left behind for the FBI to make an identification.
Does that make sense to anyone? He kept the most complete print and sent the FBI whatever was left on the barrel?
And, as we know, by the time it got to Latona this mysterious print had vanished as if it had never been there at all.
Does that make sense to anyone? It was so stubbornly fixed on the barrel cellophane couldn't remove it but it then, somehow, vanished so completely that there was not the tiniest part of it left.

One has to assume that his top priority would then be to establish whether the print he had lifted matched the one they had taken from Oswald. Establish the all important proof that Oswald had indeed handled the murder weapon. The one piece of evidence that would truly nail him:

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.


 

What does he mean "I didn't get to work enough on that"?
He had the print for days.
He had the best evidence that Oswald was the killer in his hands. What else was he working on that was more important than this?

There was no print on the underside of the barrel.
That's why there was no trace of it when Latona examined the rifle.
That's why Day never had enough time to work on it.

OR

Somebody wiped the barrel clean before Latona received it.
Day spent days trying to make the match but couldn't manage it.

[Martin Weidmann]

That is exactly what you are arguing.  Your ONLY basis to cast doubt on finding Oswald's print on the rifle is that it allegedly took Day a few days to report it.  Again, how does not mentioning it to anyone for a few days (even if that were true) call into question its authenticity?  Failure to report finding the evidence doesn't equate to fabricating or lying about the evidence.   If he had said on the first day that he found the print, would you then accept that it was Oswald's?  Of course not.  You would go down some other rabbit hole.  It was Day's job to look for prints on the rifle.  That's what he did.  He reported the results.  You don't like them so they must be fake.

That is exactly what you are arguing.

Just as I said, the whole thing went way over your head. You just don't get it.

Your ONLY basis to cast doubt on finding Oswald's print on the rifle is that it allegedly took Day a few days to report it.

Cases have been thrown out of court for a whole lot less than that. It's at best investigatory mishandling of evidence.

Again, how does not mentioning it to anyone for a few days (even if that were true) call into question its authenticity?

As per usual, you've got it the wrong way around. Authenticity of evidence can not be assumed, it needs to be proven.

Failure to report finding the evidence doesn't equate to fabricating or lying about the evidence.

Who said it did? That's just another one of your strawman

If he had said on the first day that he found the print, would you then accept that it was Oswald's?  Of course not.

If it was only "cop said so" you would be right, but if he had documented his procedure and delivered the print to the evidence room on day one, I would most certainly have accepted it as evidence, no matter what print was on it. But that's hypothetical, because Day did no such thing and his actions justify questions being asked.

It was Day's job to look for prints on the rifle.  That's what he did. 

No, Day's job was not only to look for prints on the rifle, but also to preserve them, document every step of handling the evidence and enter the item(s) to the evidence room. He did no such thing.

He reported the results.

No he didn't. All he did was produce the evidence card with a palmprint on it just before the FBI collected the evidence from the DPD for a second time. Even at that time, Day, failed to disclose that there was any match with Oswald's prints he had on file.

You don't like them so they must be fake.

No, it's a matter of you like them so they must be authentic, never mind how they were obtained.

I have never argued that the palmprint is a fake. I can't even argue that because I simply do not know. I did not examine the print itself! All I say is that it needs to be demonstrated that evidence is authentic and "cop said so" simply isn't good enough. But that's exactly what has been way over your head for as long as you have been active on this forum.

Show me the print is authentic and does belong to Oswald and I'll gladly accept it. What I don't accept is "cop said so".

[Royell Storing]

Who is in an uproar.?  I think the matter has been discussed rationally.  Everyone has listened to what he has to say.   Landis is older than even Joe Biden, though.  He never reported finding a bullet until six decades later.  I'm sure he has been influenced by CTers.  Many elderly people are subject to manipulation.  That is why scam artists and telemarketers target the elderly.  I don't think he is a bad guy or intentionally lying.  He is just a "patsy."

    As I said before, the Landis "OriginaL Report" should garner the attention. In that report, Landis detailed seeing a motorcycle at the curb area near The Steps as the Queen Mary approached/went under the Triple Underpass. At the point in time that the Queen Mary approached the Triple Underpass, DPD Motorcycle Officer Haygood was nowhere near the Elm St curb where he would eventually dump his motorcycle. The motorcycle cop reported by Landis merits scrutiny.