RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Michael Welch]

Nope.

Hi John and Charles, I think it was either 11-22-63 or June 23, 1964.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Day_aff_2nd.pdf

This may only talk about the hulls but it is probably relevant to the rifle as well. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael

[John Iacoletti]

So, George M. Doughty initialed the lift of the palm print that Day testified he found on the underside of the barrel of the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Doughty was the head of the crime lab for the DPD during the time in question. So, I think that he must have initialed it before it was sent to the FBI.

You can think that, but there's no evidence of that.  It would have been a good thing for a commission to actually ask about rather than just accepting a letter from the FBI director who wanted to convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin as dispositive.

It appears to me that Day must have turned the palm print lift over to Doughty (who then initialed it and turned it over to the FBI). This supports my earlier contention that it wasn’t Day’s place to inform the FBI of evidence (or to turn over any evidence that he wasn’t specifically instructed to turn over). Day was simply following orders from his superior and reporting to his superiors.

Doughty initialed most of the stuff that the crime lab handled, regardless of when it was turned over.  Not clear why unless he was part of the chain of custody.  Again, it would have been a good idea to have taken testimony from him.

The naysayers omit this little tidbit (Doughty’s initials)

Why include it when it tells you nothing about when Day's lift was created or how?  Day said he was alone when he did this, so Doughty's initials corroborate nothing.

when they accuse Day of wrong doings. That is called distortion by omission. And it is very common among the CT folks. Also, they seem to think that they can conclude that there was wrongdoings without any evidence of wrongdoing. Yet, in this country the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

I haven't concluded "that there was wrongdoings" (though it is suggested by considering all of the evidence), but you certainly are arguing that evidence is automatically authenticated unless wrongdoings are proven.  And you're being hypocritical because you are presuming that Oswald is "guilty" of putting a palmprint on the rifle, unless proven innocent.

[Charles Collins]

Then why did he do no further processing for the following 3 days?

I’m not sure why it appears that way to you.There’s nothing in your Hosty snip that would suggest that. But I direct your attention to the fact that Hosty also states that they were supposed to release “all the evidence”.

Anybody can write “11/22/63” on an index card that nobody sees until 11/29.

Thank you for your opinion that a letter and an indistinct smudge prove anything.

You’re trying to have it both ways. If it “wasn’t his place” then why does he claim to have verbally informed Drain about the print?

It does necessarily mean that it was sent separately from the other evidence.

Evidence of authenticity would be helpful if you want to convince others.

Then why did he do no further processing for the following 3 days?

He was instructed to stop. I have said this before. Why do you keep asking the same question?

I’m not sure why it appears that way to you.There’s nothing in your Hosty snip that would suggest that. But I direct your attention to the fact that Hosty also states that they were supposed to release “all the evidence”.

It appears that way to me because Hosty was complaining about having to do the work that he thought the DPD should have already done. Look at the date at the beginning of the Hosty snip. It is 11/26/63, so yes all the evidence is being released. Why are you directing my attention to that? 


Anybody can write “11/22/63” on an index card that nobody sees until 11/29.

Innuendo and suspicions... 


Thank you for your opinion that a letter and an indistinct smudge prove anything.

Regardless of your opinion, this is evidence that satisfied the WC. It is science that could be repeated with the same results. And the WC is who began the questioning.


You’re trying to have it both ways. If it “wasn’t his place” then why does he claim to have verbally informed Drain about the print?

Because it was on the rifle that he had been instructed to turn over to the FBI.


It does necessarily mean that it was sent separately from the other evidence.

I disagree. But I don't see how the logistics of getting the evidence to Latona are meaningful to this conversation.


Evidence of authenticity would be helpful if you want to convince others.

Typically an officer who finds evidence identifies it and testifies where he found it, the circumstances, and so on. It is then admissible as authentic. I have no idea what your problem with it is other than you have questions that you don't like the answers to.

[Charles Collins]

You can think that, but there's no evidence of that.  It would have been a good thing for a commission to actually ask about rather than just accepting a letter from the FBI director who wanted to convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin as dispositive.

Doughty initialed most of the stuff that the crime lab handled, regardless of when it was turned over.  Not clear why unless he was part of the chain of custody.  Again, it would have been a good idea to have taken testimony from him.

Why include it when it tells you nothing about when Day's lift was created or how?  Day said he was alone when he did this, so Doughty's initials corroborate nothing.

I haven't concluded "that there was wrongdoings" (though it is suggested by considering all of the evidence), but you certainly are arguing that evidence is automatically authenticated unless wrongdoings are proven.  And you're being hypocritical because you are presuming that Oswald is "guilty" of putting a palmprint on the rifle, unless proven innocent.

You can think that, but there's no evidence of that.  It would have been a good thing for a commission to actually ask about rather than just accepting a letter from the FBI director who wanted to convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin as dispositive.

If this had been a trial, perhaps Doughty would have testified. Personally, I think you will never cease making lame excuses. 


Doughty initialed most of the stuff that the crime lab handled, regardless of when it was turned over.  Not clear why unless he was part of the chain of custody.  Again, it would have been a good idea to have taken testimony from him.

What is your point? 


Why include it when it tells you nothing about when Day's lift was created or how?  Day said he was alone when he did this, so Doughty's initials corroborate nothing.

So, now you think Day should have had a witness with him while he was lifting the palm print? 


I haven't concluded "that there was wrongdoings" (though it is suggested by considering all of the evidence), but you certainly are arguing that evidence is automatically authenticated unless wrongdoings are proven.

I am not arguing any such thing.


And you're being hypocritical because you are presuming that Oswald is "guilty" of putting a palmprint on the rifle, unless proven innocent.


Day testified he found Oswald's palm print on the rifle and lifted it. The lift has been shown to have been lifted from that rifle where Day said he found it. I have presumed nothing. It is fact.

[Martin Weidmann]

So, George M. Doughty initialed the lift of the palm print that Day testified he found on the underside of the barrel of the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Doughty was the head of the crime lab for the DPD during the time in question. So, I think that he must have initialed it before it was sent to the FBI. It appears to me that Day must have turned the palm print lift over to Doughty (who then initialed it and turned it over to the FBI). This supports my earlier contention that it wasn’t Day’s place to inform the FBI of evidence (or to turn over any evidence that he wasn’t specifically instructed to turn over). Day was simply following orders from his superior and reporting to his superiors.

The naysayers omit this little tidbit (Doughty’s initials) when they accuse Day of wrong doings. That is called distortion by omission. And it is very common among the CT folks. Also, they seem to think that they can conclude that there was wrongdoings without any evidence of wrongdoing. Yet, in this country the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Yet, in this country the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Except when his name is Oswald, right?

[Martin Weidmann]

You can think that, but there's no evidence of that.  It would have been a good thing for a commission to actually ask about rather than just accepting a letter from the FBI director who wanted to convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin as dispositive.

If this had been a trial, perhaps Doughty would have testified. Personally, I think you will never cease making lame excuses. 


Doughty initialed most of the stuff that the crime lab handled, regardless of when it was turned over.  Not clear why unless he was part of the chain of custody.  Again, it would have been a good idea to have taken testimony from him.

What is your point? 


Why include it when it tells you nothing about when Day's lift was created or how?  Day said he was alone when he did this, so Doughty's initials corroborate nothing.

So, now you think Day should have had a witness with him while he was lifting the palm print? 


I haven't concluded "that there was wrongdoings" (though it is suggested by considering all of the evidence), but you certainly are arguing that evidence is automatically authenticated unless wrongdoings are proven.

I am not arguing any such thing.


And you're being hypocritical because you are presuming that Oswald is "guilty" of putting a palmprint on the rifle, unless proven innocent.


Day testified he found Oswald's palm print on the rifle and lifted it. The lift has been shown to have been lifted from that rifle where Day said he found it. I have presumed nothing. It is fact.

Day testified he found Oswald's palm print on the rifle and lifted it.

And yet, Rankin and Liebeler both doubted the veracity of that statement.

The lift has been shown to have been lifted from that rifle where Day said he found it.

Actually, it hasn't been shown that the print was lifted from the rifle.

You can apply a cellophane strip containing a print to the surface of the rifle and get the same result.

I have presumed nothing. It is fact.

There is nothing factual about any of it.

[John Iacoletti]

Then why did he do no further processing for the following 3 days?

He was instructed to stop. I have said this before. Why do you keep asking the same question?

He was instructed to stop processing the rifle and the evidence being turned over that night, not the evidence he chose to withhold “for further processing”.

It appears that way to me because Hosty was complaining about having to do the work that he thought the DPD should have already done.

There’s a difference between photographing and cataloguing the evidence being transferred to the FBI that night and documenting and securing the evidence when it is first collected.

Innuendo and suspicions... 

Blind faith in “cop said so”. And you aren’t even consistent with that. Exhibit A: Roger Craig. Exhibit B: Paul Landis.

Regardless of your opinion, this is evidence that satisfied the WC.

Is that supposed to be compelling? It didn’t take much to satisfy the WC of anything, given their preordained conclusion.

It is science that could be repeated with the same results. And the WC is who began the questioning.

Real science describes its methodology and results sufficiently enough to be reproducible. It doesn’t just say “trust us, we got this result”. The WC began the question, and then just completely punted on “Hoover said so”. Like I said, they gave more investigative care to where a cab dropped Oswald off. They could have saved all that time, money, and effort by just asking Hoover on 11/24/63, “whodunnit?”

You’re trying to have it both ways. If it “wasn’t his place” then why does he claim to have verbally informed Drain about the print?

Because it was on the rifle that he had been instructed to turn over to the FBI.

Did his superiors instruct him to do that? Like I said, you’re trying to have it both ways.

I disagree. But I don't see how the logistics of getting the evidence to Latona are meaningful to this conversation.

Because the FBI wasn’t aware the lift even existed until 11/29. And yet (according to Hosty), they were supposed to have all the evidence already.

Evidence of authenticity would be helpful if you want to convince others.

Typically an officer who finds evidence identifies it and testifies where he found it, the circumstances, and so on.

Typically evidence handling and documentation procedures are followed so that a cop can’t just come along days, weeks, or months later and say “oh yeah, I have this piece of evidence I didn’t mention before. But trust me, I’m a cop”.

[John Iacoletti]

If this had been a trial, perhaps Doughty would have testified.

Perhaps. But this isn’t, and he didn’t, so it doesn’t help.

Personally, I think you will never cease making lame excuses. 

Says the guy making lame “perhaps” excuses for every inconsistency.

Doughty initialed most of the stuff that the crime lab handled, regardless of when it was turned over.  Not clear why unless he was part of the chain of custody.  Again, it would have been a good idea to have taken testimony from him.

What is your point? 

That Doughty’s initials on the card (and your assumptions about when they were written) tell you nothing about whether Day’s claims are true or not.

I haven't concluded "that there was wrongdoings" (though it is suggested by considering all of the evidence), but you certainly are arguing that evidence is automatically authenticated unless wrongdoings are proven.

I am not arguing any such thing.

Of course you are. You’re saying that the index card lift is authentic because Day said so (with ever-changing details and excuses).

Day testified he found Oswald's palm print on the rifle and lifted it.

So what? Roger Craig testified that he saw a Mauser and that Oswald got into a Rambler.

The lift has been shown to have been lifted from that rifle where Day said he found it. I have presumed nothing. It is fact.

No. Claims aren’t demonstrations. Or facts. If I write you a letter saying that my unnamed laboratory guys have built a perpetual motion machine —here’s an indistinct smudge with arrows on it, that doesn’t just become a proven fact because I claimed it.