RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[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.     

[Richard Smith]

    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.   

Why?

[Richard Smith]

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.

In every criminal case, some law enforcement person collects the evidence (e.g. prints, DNA) and reports their results.  Sometimes months or years later.  You are suggesting that this is somehow suspect because the "say so."  LOL.   Day's job was to check the rifle for prints.  He did that and reported the results.  He explained how that was done.  All you have done is claim his results were possibly fabricated because he didn't immediately report them during the investigation.  Even that weak claim is suspect as there are indications that he did mention the results to others.  But even if true, it in no way leads to any legitimate doubt about the authenticity of the prints.  The police present the evidence that they have collected.  Day did that in this case.  If a defendant wants to argue that the evidence is fabricated, they then have to make that showing.  You have shown nothing here to cast doubt on the print.  You repeat the same nonsense.  Almost anything is possible.  Just suggesting that it is "possible" that Day fabricated the evidence because we do not have a time machine to confirm with 100% certainty is a ludicrous standard.  It would be impossible to convict any criminal if that were the standard used in every case.

[Royell Storing]

Why?

    Are you familiar with the timeline of Officer Haygood? The motorcycle cop reported by Landis does NOT fit the Haygood timeline. Perhaps the motorcycle cop reported by Landis is a to-this-day unknown motorcycle cop? Perhaps this is the same cop that was filmed by Darnell inside the railroad yard with Officer Roger Craig? This is "Why".   

[Martin Weidmann]

In every criminal case, some law enforcement person collects the evidence (e.g. prints, DNA) and reports their results.  Sometimes months or years later.  You are suggesting that this is somehow suspect because the "say so."  LOL.   Day's job was to check the rifle for prints.  He did that and reported the results.  He explained how that was done.  All you have done is claim his results were possibly fabricated because he didn't immediately report them during the investigation.  Even that weak claim is suspect as there are indications that he did mention the results to others.  But even if true, it in no way leads to any legitimate doubt about the authenticity of the prints.  The police present the evidence that they have collected.  Day did that in this case.  If a defendant wants to argue that the evidence is fabricated, they then have to make that showing.  You have shown nothing here to cast doubt on the print.  You repeat the same nonsense.  Almost anything is possible.  Just suggesting that it is "possible" that Day fabricated the evidence because we do not have a time machine to confirm with 100% certainty is a ludicrous standard.  It would be impossible to convict any criminal if that were the standard used in every case.

In every criminal case, some law enforcement person collects the evidence (e.g. prints, DNA) and reports their results.  Sometimes months or years later.

Most certainly not in every trial, but it does indeed happen that evidence that has been collected needs further examination of which the results come later. But that's a documented process which starts with the discovery of the evidence. That's not what happened here. Day, as a forensic expert (of all people), claims to have found the palmprint and did nothing with it for at least four days. In his Oral History interview, Day confirmed that he had Oswald's prints on file by then. So he could have compared those with the palmprint, but instead he did absolutely nothing. When Drain collected the evidence on Friday evening, he failed to report to the FBI that he had found a print on the rifle and the evidentiary record for the evidence card with the palmprint doesn't start until Day, at the last moment, passed on the card to the FBI when they collected all the evidence for the second time.

You are suggesting that this is somehow suspect because the "say so."  LOL.   

It not a matter of it being "suspect". It's a matter of Day being able to demonstrate the authenticity of the evidence and there "cop said so" certainly isn't enough.

Day's job was to check the rifle for prints.  He did that and reported the results.  He explained how that was done.

I have already replied to this. Repeating the same misrepresentation isn't going to make it anymore correct. Besides, this is exactly the "cop said so" scenario.

All you have done is claim his results were possibly fabricated because he didn't immediately report them during the investigation.

Another one of your strawman. I haven't claimed that at all. You simply do not get it..... and I have no intention to explain it to you again.

Even that weak claim is suspect as there are indications that he did mention the results to others.

No there aren't. There isn't a contemporary report by anybody.... Pinkston's memo failed to support a similar claim by DVP and something written in a book 30 years later isn't credible either.

But even if true, it in no way leads to any legitimate doubt about the authenticity of the prints.

Why do you always get everything backwards? You don't get to assume authenticity. There doesn't even have to be doubt. Authenticity needs to be proven! Not the other way around.

The police present the evidence that they have collected. 

Yes, and they need to prove authenticity when they present it. That's what a chain of custody, in situ photographs and examination documents are for. You can not have crucial evidence lying around somewhere unsupervised where anybody can manipulate it.

Day did that in this case.

No he didn't. That's exactly the point.

If a defendant wants to argue that the evidence is fabricated, they then have to make that showing.

A defendant doesn't have to argue that the evidence is fabricated. All he has to do is ask for authentication of the evidence. If the prosecutor can not authenticate the evidence it becomes worthless.

You have shown nothing here to cast doubt on the print.  You repeat the same nonsense.

Why do you keep on showing us just how naive and dumb you really are? You assume people are guilty without proper evidence and you assume that evidence is authentic without being able to show that it actually is.

Just suggesting that it is "possible" that Day fabricated the evidence because we do not have a time machine to confirm with 100% certainty is a ludicrous standard.

The only one suggesting that is you!

It would be impossible to convict any criminal if that were the standard used in every case.

Please never ever serve on a jury in a criminal trial....

[John Iacoletti]

The palm print was not some big secret that Day kept to himself. Rusty Livingston and a few others who worked in the DPD crime lab told Gary Savage that they saw the palm print on 11/22/63 and the following weekend. The details can be found in Gary’s book: “JFK First Day Evidence.” The fact that the CT folks have for almost sixty years completely ignored these men indicates to me that the CT folks are not interested in learning the truth.

Is there any evidence that “these men” ever mentioned this prior to supposedly telling Gary Savage in the 90s?

[John Iacoletti]

But even if true, it in no way leads to any legitimate doubt about the authenticity of the prints.  The police present the evidence that they have collected.  Day did that in this case.  If a defendant wants to argue that the evidence is fabricated, they then have to make that showing.  You have shown nothing here to cast doubt on the print.  You repeat the same nonsense.

You’re the one repeating the same nonsense — that authenticity can just be assumed by default unless proven otherwise. If this was actually true then evidence handling procedures would not even exist.

Your attempt to characterize this as just “Day didn’t immediately report this” is patently dishonest.

Day didn't turn it over to the FBI with the other evidence that night, nor did he even tell FBI agent Drain of its existence.  He didn't photograph it in place or cover it with cellophane.  He claimed that there were still visible ridges left after doing his lift. Furthermore, Sebastian Latona examined the rifle and said that area didn't look like it had been processed at all.  He found no traces of ridges there. Then a week later, Latona receives (separately from all the other evidence) an index card with a partial print on it. When asked by the WC to sign an affidavit regarding his handling of the print, Day refused.

In light of all of these discrepancies and contradictions, “Day said so” doesn’t cut it. Not to the objective viewer.