RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Martin Weidmann]

“Lt. DAY stated he received instructions from Chief of Police JESSE B. CURRY, Dallas Police Department, Dallas, Texas, to turn over all of the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD, to the FBI shortly before midnight on November 22, 1963.”

Those are the words of Vincent Drain. Not the words of Carl Day. If you are going to claim that Day was told to turn over the palm print you need better evidence than Vincent Drain’s words.

Edit: These are the words of Carl Day as transcribed in “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, page 238:

Around 11:30 that night I received orders which merely said, “Release the rifle to the FBI.” Shortly thereafter I handed it over to Vince Drain of the FBI. I told him, “There’s a trace of a print here” and showed him where it was. It was just a verbal communication to him. I didn’t have time to make any written reports; I just gave it to him and he signed for it without saying anything. I don’t remember whether he wrapped it up with anything or not, but he took it on to Washington that night. It’s a funny thing about that. We had a few other items around such as some of his clothes and paper off the roll at the Book Depository that we didn’t do anything else with. I didn’t send the card lift either. They told me not to do anything else, so I didn’t even look at it again.


When did he ever say that?

I didn’t say that Carl Day said that. It is my own opinion. Day has said that he and Drain had already known each other for years before the assassination and got along well. Combine that with Day saying he verbally told Drain about the palm print and a logical conclusion could be made that Day trusted Drain to relay the message.


I’m going to believe the one who isn’t trying to cover his ass with ever evolving stories to make up for mishandling evidence (at best), or falsifying evidence (at worst).

It is amazing to me that you can believe those claims of wrongdoing by Day without any evidence. You always insist that any evidence that points towards LHO’s guilt isn’t good enough for you. It sure appears hypocritical to me.


Edit #2:  Here is apparently what Vincent Drain meant by “all the evidence” in the report that your earlier post quotes:



These are Vincent Drains words as transcribed in “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, page 247-248:

Earlier in the evening, about 8:00 o’clock, the division chief had talked to me on the telephone and informed me that the FBI in Washington demanded that we bring to them for examination the rifle, the revolver that was used to kill Tippit, as well as the different paraphernalia such as identification cards and other small items that Oswald had on him. I discussed it with the police chief and told him that we’d keep the chain of evidence intact and that I would pick them up there myself and wait for them until they were examined in Washington then bring them back. So it was turned over to us.

I’m going to believe the one who isn’t trying to cover his ass with ever evolving stories to make up for mishandling evidence (at best), or falsifying evidence (at worst).

It is amazing to me that you can believe those claims of wrongdoing by Day without any evidence. You always insist that any evidence that points towards LHO’s guilt isn’t good enough for you. It sure appears hypocritical to me.

There is nothing hypocritical about it. Day's story kept on evolving and even Rankin and Liebeler were questioning the authenticity and/or source of the palmprint.

[Royell Storing]

  Not sure how anything under the J Edgar Hoover/FBI letterhead can be trusted. That well was poisoned a long, long time ago. We have a couple generations that know little to nothing about J Edgar and the generation that should know, has either forgotten or chosen to forget the depths of deceit that head of the FBI had sunken to. The inclusion of Hoover in any discussion is an automatic DQ. 

[Chris Register]

A little sensitive are we? I understand your comfort level with this forum spending an inordinate amount of time insulting other members, since you are usually right in the fray. But speaking for myself, it's not really productive and doesn't do service to the collective expertise of many of the members, you included. To be honest, I find it boring. This was only my second post ever, so I guess I should be proud that it only took that long to be belittled. Let me point out why I brought up to other topics in my post Martin.
 As you know Agent Landis was one of 8 agents within approximately 30 feet of the people they were trying to protect. They were not required to look back like the driver and passengers of the Kennedy limo, they had a front row seat. Of those 8, 2 remain. One has spoken volumes and written books, one has been quiet and now is promoting a book. For me, listening to him and listing to his answers is new, interesting and worth a discussion. The accidental shooting of JFK by Agent Hickey is less than credible, and doesn't have the credibility similar to that of an agent who was as close to the Kennedy's as Landis was. In other words, his story is worth looking at. Mary Mumford shows that when new information is presented, new theories can evolve, and we can inch closer to the truth. So you missed my use of analogy to make a point. The point was new information is valuable. Especially because if true it puts the SBT in pretty substantial jeopardy. I was not trying to derail the thread to argue Mumford or Hickey.

I have seen many times members, including yourself, tell posters to start a new thread or go to a similar thread that is elsewhere on the forum. I think that is appropriate with where this thread has gone, if indeed the Landis information is a stale as you suggest.

[Andrew Mason]

Especially because if true it puts the SBT in pretty substantial jeopardy. I was not trying to derail the thread to argue Mumford or Hickey.

The evidence of Landis that he retrieved a bullet that he describes as being identical to CE399 (whole bullet with just a dent on one side on the butt end), explains how CE399 got into Parkland.  How, or whether, it ended up on Connally's stretcher is still unknown but that is a minor detail.  He does not say that there were two such bullets, so I don't see how that puts the SBT in jeopardy.

What puts the second shot SBT in jeopardy is the 1.......2....3 shot pattern.  What puts the first shot SBT in jeopardy is the evidence of the Connallys as well as Gayle Newman who were adamant that Governor Connally was hit in the upper body on the second of three shots.

[Martin Weidmann]

A little sensitive are we? I understand your comfort level with this forum spending an inordinate amount of time insulting other members, since you are usually right in the fray. But speaking for myself, it's not really productive and doesn't do service to the collective expertise of many of the members, you included. To be honest, I find it boring. This was only my second post ever, so I guess I should be proud that it only took that long to be belittled. Let me point out why I brought up to other topics in my post Martin.
 As you know Agent Landis was one of 8 agents within approximately 30 feet of the people they were trying to protect. They were not required to look back like the driver and passengers of the Kennedy limo, they had a front row seat. Of those 8, 2 remain. One has spoken volumes and written books, one has been quiet and now is promoting a book. For me, listening to him and listing to his answers is new, interesting and worth a discussion. The accidental shooting of JFK by Agent Hickey is less than credible, and doesn't have the credibility similar to that of an agent who was as close to the Kennedy's as Landis was. In other words, his story is worth looking at. Mary Mumford shows that when new information is presented, new theories can evolve, and we can inch closer to the truth. So you missed my use of analogy to make a point. The point was new information is valuable. Especially because if true it puts the SBT in pretty substantial jeopardy. I was not trying to derail the thread to argue Mumford or Hickey.

I have seen many times members, including yourself, tell posters to start a new thread or go to a similar thread that is elsewhere on the forum. I think that is appropriate with where this thread has gone, if indeed the Landis information is a stale as you suggest.

The sensitivity is all yours. Your ad hom attack on me is pathetic. Who do you think you are that you, after having been a passive member for years, feel that you can jump in and berate active members of this forum for not staying on topic just because you are interested in "new evidence"?

Ever since this thread started, you could have joined the conversation and kept it going. You didn't. So, why should I, or anybody else, care that you find what we are doing boring. Why don't you first try to make some sort of contribution to a discussion before you start complaining that you're not getting what you want?

You said about hearing Landis speak;

For me, listening to him and listing to his answers is new, interesting and worth a discussion.

Well, if it is worth a discussion it's worth you joining that discussion, instead of complaining about the thread having been derailed, don't you think?

[Alan Ford]

Mrs. Kennedy's left hand

[Royell Storing]

A little sensitive are we? I understand your comfort level with this forum spending an inordinate amount of time insulting other members, since you are usually right in the fray. But speaking for myself, it's not really productive and doesn't do service to the collective expertise of many of the members, you included. To be honest, I find it boring. This was only my second post ever, so I guess I should be proud that it only took that long to be belittled. Let me point out why I brought up to other topics in my post Martin.
 As you know Agent Landis was one of 8 agents within approximately 30 feet of the people they were trying to protect. They were not required to look back like the driver and passengers of the Kennedy limo, they had a front row seat. Of those 8, 2 remain. One has spoken volumes and written books, one has been quiet and now is promoting a book. For me, listening to him and listing to his answers is new, interesting and worth a discussion. The accidental shooting of JFK by Agent Hickey is less than credible, and doesn't have the credibility similar to that of an agent who was as close to the Kennedy's as Landis was. In other words, his story is worth looking at. Mary Mumford shows that when new information is presented, new theories can evolve, and we can inch closer to the truth. So you missed my use of analogy to make a point. The point was new information is valuable. Especially because if true it puts the SBT in pretty substantial jeopardy. I was not trying to derail the thread to argue Mumford or Hickey.

I have seen many times members, including yourself, tell posters to start a new thread or go to a similar thread that is elsewhere on the forum. I think that is appropriate with where this thread has gone, if indeed the Landis information is a stale as you suggest.

   Why many of you wantta green light the recent 60 yr old recollection of Landis and then totally ignore the "Original Report" he filed immediately after the assassination is hard to understand. In that report, Landis recalled seeing a motorcycle cop at the Elm St curb as the Queen Mary was about to enter the Triple Underpass. This Landis timeline eliminates Motorcycle officer Haygood as being the motorcycle cop that he reported having seen. This means Landis saw a different cop that history has failed to ID. Skinny Holland, Lee Bowers and others detailed under oath having watched a motorcycle cop riding UP the knoll. This could be the same still unknown cop that Landis detailed in his report. If you're gonna buy into the 60 yr old bullet retrieval story that Landis is now offering, you also have to give his "Original Report" that same level of credibility. 

[Jerry Organ]

   Why many of you wantta green light the recent 60 yr old recollection of Landis and then totally ignore the "Original Report" he filed immediately after the assassination is hard to understand. In that report, Landis recalled seeing a motorcycle cop at the Elm St curb as the Queen Mary was about to enter the Triple Underpass. This Landis timeline eliminates Motorcycle officer Haygood as being the motorcycle cop that he reported having seen. This means Landis saw a different cop that history has failed to ID. Skinny Holland, Lee Bowers and others detailed under oath having watched a motorcycle cop riding UP the knoll. This could be the same still unknown cop that Landis detailed in his report. If you're gonna buy into the 60 yr old bullet retrieval story that Landis is now offering, you also have to give his "Original Report" that same level of credibility.

    "My reaction at this time was that the shot came from somewhere
     towards the front, but I did not see anyone on the overpass, and
     looked along the right-hand side of the road. By this time we were
     almost at the overpass, and the only person I recall seeing was a
     negro male in light green slacks and a beige colored shirt running
     across a grassy section towards some concrete steps and what
     appeared to be a low stone wall. He was in a bent over position,
     and I did not notice anything in his hands.

     By now both the President's car and the follow-up car were traveling
     at a high rate of speed. As we passed under the overpass, I was
     looking back and saw a motorcycle policeman stopping approximately
     where I saw the negro running. I do not recall hearing a third shot."

          -- Excerpt from Paul Landris statement, November 27, 1963



DPD Officer Bobby W. Hargis, who was riding escort near the President when the shots were fired, stopped his motorcycle after the head shot. Hargis stopped in the street opposite the "low stone wall" on the knoll and got off.