When the SN was built

[John Iacoletti]

According to Rusty, "Drain was half listening to Lieutenant Day and half to the other FBI man and evidently didn't get the word about the palm print at that time."

“Evidently”.

Or Day never said a word to Drain because it didn’t exist yet.

Rusty to the rescue 30 years later with his magic briefcase…

[Charles Collins]

“However much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing” — George Orwell

[Charles Collins]

Gary Savage, “JFK First Day Evidence”, page 77 (quote of R.W. Livingston):

….“I am sure that Lieutenant Day, who was in charge of the Crime Lab, dusted the rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository, and lifted a partial palm print off the underside of the barrel after the rifle was taken apart. 2. They had the actual print there in the office that night. I compared it my self with Oswald’s palm print, and it looked to me like there was enough there to say yes, it was Oswald’s palm print. I think all the other people on the day shift had already looked at the palm print before I arrived that night, but I went ahead and looked at the palm print myself and was satisfied that it was Oswald’s.”

[Richard Smith]

Irrelevant as it is about what happened the second time the evidence was given to the FBI.

The first time this happened was on Friday evening at around 11 PM. It was flown to Washington, examined and returned to the DPD on Saturday, when Oswald was still alive.
The FBI found no trace of a print on the rifle, yet Day said nothing about the print he had allegedly lifted from the rifle until the evidence was turned over to the FBI the second time!

Why did Day stay silent after the FBI found no print or even a trace of a lifted print? What possible reason could Day have had to say nothing?

So many false premises, contradictions, and absence of common sense and logic.  Here you are alleging that the fact that Day did not mention the print to anyone means that he fabricated that evidence.  You can't even prove that he didn't mention it to anyone.  But even if he didn't, why would he lie to fabricate evidence after Oswald was dead?  There would be no prosecution of Oswald by the DPD.  If the DPD was satisfied by the evidence without this print - and they were, and there would never be any trial why in the world would someone risk their reputation and career lying about the evidence in the most important case in his career?  It makes absolutely no sense.  In fact, it is baseless and idiotic.   

[Jack Nessan]

My recollection is that some of those boxes didn't even contain books.

Might be right, if nothing else, using the prevailing Conspiracy Land Logic, LHO took all the books out and then retaped the empty box during the actual shooting and then ran to the lunchroom where he encountered Officer Baker. Totally innocent. Really, it could have happened that way you know.

[Jack Nessan]

So lack of fingerprints on the top is somehow relevant, but not lack of fingerprints anywhere else. Nice special pleading. But the real question is, how are fingerprints anywhere on a cardboard box evidence of murder?

According to the claim you made of LHO’s innocence that is exactly right. His fingerprints place him building the SN and not the result if him retrieving books from the box. If there is a better candidate for the assassin, other than the individual who built the SN and brought his rifle to the TSBD where it was found on the 6th floor and matched to the shells, bullet and fragments, now would be a good time to reveal who it is.

[Charles Collins]

Here’s CE 506 which depicts the position of the clipboard when found. This is the first time I have seen this photo. I cannot help but speculate that the rifle was hidden amongst those boxes when LHO arrived at the TSBD that morning. And that he might have left his clipboard there as he retrieved his rifle just after being seen by Givens.

[Martin Weidmann]

So many false premises, contradictions, and absence of common sense and logic.  Here you are alleging that the fact that Day did not mention the print to anyone means that he fabricated that evidence.  You can't even prove that he didn't mention it to anyone.  But even if he didn't, why would he lie to fabricate evidence after Oswald was dead?  There would be no prosecution of Oswald by the DPD.  If the DPD was satisfied by the evidence without this print - and they were, and there would never be any trial why in the world would someone risk their reputation and career lying about the evidence in the most important case in his career?  It makes absolutely no sense.  In fact, it is baseless and idiotic.

Did you take classes to become so patheticly ignorant?

You can't even prove that he didn't mention it to anyone

A negative can't be proven. Instead prove that Day did mention it to somebody. You can't!

But even if he didn't, why would he lie to fabricate evidence after Oswald was dead?  There would be no prosecution of Oswald by the DPD.

If you had read my previous post you would have your answer.

If the DPD was satisfied by the evidence without this print - and they were,

Really? And you know this, how?

The reality is of course that we know now they had no case of any significance against Oswald for the Kennedy murder, despite the bogus claims made by Henry Wade.

why in the world would someone risk their reputation and career lying about the evidence in the most important case in his career?

What risk? Day would tell the WC, behind closed doors, and the evidence (including his testimony) would be locked away as top secret for decades. Who was going to call out Day for lying?

Btw, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question;

When the FBI examined the rifle on Friday evening or early Saturday morning and found no trace of a print or residue of a print that was lifted, why did Day keep his mouth shut?  Oswald was still alive at that point and his print found on the rifle would be crucial evidence, yet Day said nothing and by doing so discredited the evidence and the chain of custody. Does that make sense to you?