When the SN was built

[Alan Ford]

From Secret Service report, 8 Jan 1964:



And there we have it, in black and white. The sighting of Mr. Oswald with a clipboard on six happened BEFORE the Depository floor-laying crew broke for lunch.

By the time of his WC testimony, Mr. Givens has obligingly invented a return trip upstairs for jacket and cigarettes, all so the 'investigating' authorities can put Mr. Oswald on an empty sixth floor.

And this is the kind of nonsense the Warren Gullibles build their fantasy scenario on! 

[Martin Weidmann]

The kooks are really getting stirred up by this spanking. Where is Otto to chime in?  Does he live in "Europe" too?  I do wonder if they believe any of their own nonsense or whether this is just a hobby to extend the discussion.  Like arguing with someone who says the sky is blue to get a rise out them or seek attention.   Do they really believe there is any real possibility that Day fabricated the print evidence or is this defense attorney nonsense in which they don't believe their opinion matters.  All that matters is suggesting false doubt in the mind of others even if they themselves know it is bull.  What is more frightening?  That they don't believe their own arguments or that they do?

How do you know for sure that Richard Smith is once again stuck with no answers to basic questions?

The answer is; he starts babbling on about Otto and "Europe".

Do they really believe there is any real possibility that Day fabricated the print evidence

FBI Special Agent Drain seems to think so, as you can read in John's most recent post, in which he quotes Drain.

The fact that you are so naive that you can not believe Day would do such a thing doesn't mean he couldn't or wouldn't have done it. It just means you are a narrowminded fool who believes anything at face value.

[Martin Weidmann]

Asks the same guy who claims to have proven that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and that Day didn't mention the prints to anyone.  LOL.  Granted you haven't actually proven those things but apparently believe the concept is possible.

who claims to have proven

you haven't actually proven those things

Stop babbling and make up your mind. Did I, or did I not, claim to have proven either?

Asks the same guy who claims to have proven that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and that Day didn't mention the prints to anyone.

Says the guy who, for the past 7 months now, has failed to prove that Oswald did come down the stairs and now also can not prove that Day told anybody about the print he allegedly lifted from the rifle.


Btw, in the part of Day's interview for the Sixth Floor Museum, Oral History Collection, in 1996, Day claims that he showed Drain where the print he lifted from the rifle had been. He states;

And I told him at the time, there‟s a print here. I showed him where it is, where it was.

which implies that there must have been residue of the print on the weapon. Yet, when the FBI examined the rifle, a few hours later, they found no print or residue.

How Day can show Drain something that the FBI lab said wasn't there is beyond me.

[John Iacoletti]

It’s just like “Richard” to flail around a wet noodle and call it a “spanking”.

[John Iacoletti]

Asks the same guy who claims to have proven that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and that Day didn't mention the prints to anyone.  LOL.  Granted you haven't actually proven those things but apparently believe the concept is possible.

Says the guy whose evidence that Oswald came down the stairs is that he did.

[Richard Smith]

who claims to have proven

you haven't actually proven those things

Stop babbling and make up your mind. Did I, or did I not, claim to have proven either?

Asks the same guy who claims to have proven that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and that Day didn't mention the prints to anyone.

Says the guy who, for the past 7 months now, has failed to prove that Oswald did come down the stairs and now also can not prove that Day told anybody about the print he allegedly lifted from the rifle.


Btw, in the part of Day's interview for the Sixth Floor Museum, Oral History Collection, in 1996, Day claims that he showed Drain where the print he lifted from the rifle had been. He states;

And I told him at the time, there‟s a print here. I showed him where it is, where it was.

which implies that there must have been residue of the print on the weapon. Yet, when the FBI examined the rifle, a few hours later, they found no print or residue.

How Day can show Drain something that the FBI lab said wasn't there is beyond me.

So is it possible to prove something didn't happen or not?  I'm losing track.  You are all over the place. 

[Martin Weidmann]

So is it possible to prove something didn't happen or not?  I'm losing track.  You are all over the place.

You've lost track a very long time ago.

You can't even prove that something did happen.

[John Iacoletti]

In his interview with Bob Porter, Lt. Day mentions a "3 by 5" card", probably a standard size card for most prints. The palm print was lifted with 2" wide tape, so the paper it was mounted on was non-standard.

This illustrates nicely that "Day said so" (especially 33 years later) doesn't make something correct.

Summary from Pat Speer of how Day's story evolved through the years:

--------
1. 11-29-63--4-22-64 Lt. Day's initial story regarding the rifle is that he removed the wood stock after noticing a print going under the wood stock down at the bottom of the barrel near the trigger guard, and that he then discovered a print that had been completely covered by the wood stock near the firing end of the barrel. He says he then lifted this print, and was pressured into turning the rifle over to the FBI before he could photograph both what remained of this print and the other print on the barrel he hadn't even started to work on.

2. 9-9-64 Lt. Day stops claiming he removed the wood stock from the rifle after noticing a print on the barrel by the trigger guard. As this print was not lifted by Day nor developed by the FBI, the FBI's failure to observe or document this print was quite a problem, and its disappearance from Day's story within days of the FBI's telling the Warren Commission they found evidence supporting Day's claim CE 637 was lifted from the rifle... is quite the coincidence.

3. 9-9-64 Lt. Day names the person he claims pressured him into discontinuing work on the rifle, and it's Chief of Police Jesse Curry.

4. 10-18-77 Lt. Day begins claiming it was the print down by the end of the barrel--the print he claimed he lifted--that he observed before removing the wood stock. This is quite the change considering he originally claimed this print was completely covered by the wood stock.

5. 10-18-77 Lt. Day also begins claiming it was Capt. Will Fritz, as opposed to Chief Jesse Curry, who pressured him into discontinuing work on the rifle.

6. 10-18-77 Lt. Day also begins claiming he told FBI agent Vincent Drain about the print on the underside of the rifle barrel before handing him the rifle on 11-22-63.

7. 1993 Lt. Day begins claiming it was Capt. George Doughty who pressured him into discontinuing work on the rifle, as opposed to Curry and Fritz.

8. 1993 Lt. Day also begins claiming he not only told Vincent Drain about the print on the underside of the barrel, but pointed out its location.