RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Dan O'meara]

Not sure what difference it makes but it would have been just past 9:00pm in the evening when Day first had access to Oswald's prints.
There were two sets of prints taken [which seems odd]
Around 9:30 pm by Hicks and Barnes
Around 12:30am Saturday by Lt. Knight.
I can only find copies of the prints taken by Knight, does anyone have access to the prints taken by Hicks and Barnes?

[Charles Collins]

Not sure what difference it makes but it would have been just past 9:00pm in the evening when Day first had access to Oswald's prints.
There were two sets of prints taken [which seems odd]
Around 9:30 pm by Hicks and Barnes
Around 12:30am Saturday by Lt. Knight.
I can only find copies of the prints taken by Knight, does anyone have access to the prints taken by Hicks and Barnes?

I seem to remember Day testifying that it was standard procedure to obtain two sets of prints in case one had a smear or defect, hopefully the other one would be okay. If you look at Day’s testimony, I seem to remember him testifying about who took prints, perhaps there is an exhibit number associated with his testimony.


Edit: I found it:

Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked "Exhibit 629" I ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. That is the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know where this print was taken?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; it was taken by Detective J. B. Hicks in Captain Fritz' office on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Did you take more than one right palmprint on that day, if you know?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we took two, actually we took three. Two of them were taken in Captain Fritz' office, and one set which I witnessed taking myself in the identification bureau.
Mr. BELIN. Any particular reason why you took more than one?
Mr. DAY. In most cases, when making comparisons, we will take at least two to insure we have a good clear print of the entire palm.
Mr. BELIN. Now, based----
Mr. DAY. One might be smeared where the other would not.

[Chris Register]

I appreciate your critique, in that I have never felt knowledgeable enough to speak about the details of the assassination. I have been well educated about the event more from the posts here than from most books I’ve read. I also was hesitant to post because why open myself up to the attacks, often personal, that I see time and time again. You disagree with me, which is fine, and you have probably forgotten more than I will ever know about the assassination. But had you simply taken a breath, and deleted the last part about me derailing the discussion, I would not have felt compelled to defend myself. I didn’t realize the thread had been exhausted, so I got that. The last line I thought was just a ding at a newbie. Martin, I don’t know you, nor you me. I look forward to topics upon which you post. Most of the time I agree with a conclusion, or I learn something new from your posts. My guess is the forum needs new blood as well as hero members. Don’t worry. I have been appropriately chastened.
May we all be alive to learn the truth of that awful event.

[Royell Storing]

  Regarding Lt Day, how can anyone have any confidence in anything he does when the guy parades down public streets holding the Carcano dangling by the strap? They had a general/all purpose crime lab on wheels via their station wagon. Day shoulda had someone drive that crime lab on wheels to the front door of the TSBD and then exited the TSBD and straight into the station wagon with the Carcano. Day did nothing on 11/22/63 to warrant having confidence in anything he did or even said.

[Martin Weidmann]

  Regarding Lt Day, how can anyone have any confidence in anything he does when the guy parades down public streets holding the Carcano dangling by the strap? They had a general/all purpose crime lab on wheels via their station wagon. Day shoulda had someone drive that crime lab on wheels to the front door of the TSBD and then exited the TSBD and straight into the station wagon with the Carcano. Day did nothing on 11/22/63 to warrant having confidence in anything he did or even said.

That's not all. When Wesley Buell Frazier was polygraphed on Friday evening, he was shown the paper pag that allegedly was found at the TSBD and he denied that it was the bag Oswald had carried to work that morning. Frazier described a completely different bag. Confronted with this apparent problem, it was Day who suggested the theory that Oswald had carried the TSBD bag (holding a rifle) in the much smaller old bag that Frazier had described. A completely bonkers theory of course, but it shows Day's frame of mind. Rather than accepting that the TSBD bag wasn't the bag Oswald had carried, Day desperately tried to come up with an explanation to keep the TSBD bag in play after all. A very strange way to deal with evidence indeed!

[Richard Smith]

That's not all. When Wesley Buell Frazier was polygraphed on Friday evening, he was shown the paper pag that allegedly was found at the TSBD and he denied that it was the bag Oswald had carried to work that morning. Frazier described a completely different bag. Confronted with this apparent problem, it was Day who suggested the theory that Oswald had carried the TSBD bag (holding a rifle) in the much smaller old bag that Frazier had described. A completely bonkers theory of course, but it shows Day's frame of mind. Rather than accepting that the TSBD bag wasn't the bag Oswald had carried, Day desperately tried to come up with an explanation to keep the TSBD bag in play after all. A very strange way to deal with evidence indeed!

Oswald himself denied carrying any long bag.  He said he just had his lunch.  Frazier, however, indicates that he specifically asked Oswald that morning about his lunch and Oswald confirmed that he hadn't brought it but that he had brought curtain rods in the long package that he was carrying.  So Oswald was lying to someone about the contents of his long package.  Why does he do that?  He obviously wants to help himself.  So what makes more sense to lie about.  The curtain rods or a rifle?  Even a contrarian might be able to figure that out.  And a long bag was found with Oswald's prints on it.  No other such bag matching Frazier's description was ever found or otherwise accounted for.  If Oswald had carried such a bag and it contained curtain rods, he had every incentive to acknowledge that and direct the DPD to that package to help himself.  Instead he contradicts Frazier's testimony and denies carrying any long bag.  Verdict = GUILTY.

[Martin Weidmann]

Oswald himself denied carrying any long bag.  He said he just had his lunch.  Frazier, however, indicates that he specifically asked Oswald that morning about his lunch and Oswald confirmed that he hadn't brought it but that he had brought curtain rods in the long package that he was carrying.  So Oswald was lying to someone about the contents of his long package.  Why does he do that?  He obviously wants to help himself.  So what makes more sense to lie about.  The curtain rods or a rifle?  Even a contrarian might be able to figure that out.  And a long bag was found with Oswald's prints on it.  No other such bag matching Frazier's description was ever found or otherwise accounted for.  If Oswald had carried such a bag and it contained curtain rods, he had every incentive to acknowledge that and direct the DPD to that package to help himself.  Instead he contradicts Frazier's testimony and denies carrying any long bag.  Verdict = GUILTY.

No. Verdict: IDIOTIC

Not a shred of actual evidence. Just supposition..... as per usual

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald himself denied carrying any long bag. 

False. What Fritz wrote was, “denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister”.

He said he just had his lunch.  Frazier, however, indicates that he specifically asked Oswald that morning about his lunch and Oswald confirmed that he hadn't brought it but that he had brought curtain rods in the long package that he was carrying.  So Oswald was lying to someone about the contents of his long package.  Why does he do that?  He obviously wants to help himself.  So what makes more sense to lie about.  The curtain rods or a rifle?  Even a contrarian might be able to figure that out.  And a long bag was found with Oswald's prints on it.  No other such bag matching Frazier's description was ever found or otherwise accounted for.  If Oswald had carried such a bag and it contained curtain rods, he had every incentive to acknowledge that and direct the DPD to that package to help himself.  Instead he contradicts Frazier's testimony and denies carrying any long bag.  Verdict = GUILTY.

All of these verbal gymnastics do not make up for the fact that you have ZERO evidence that CE139 (or any other rifle) was in the package that Frazier saw.

ZERO